← The Ben Shapiro Show
The Ben Shapiro Show
Friendly Fire: A Different Kind of Nuclear Deal & Vance's "Communion" Calculus
01:07:37
Loading summary
Transcript160 lines
- [00:00]
A
We'll get to more on this in a moment. First, remember when AI was just complaining about customer service? Chatbot? Well, now it's showing up in boardrooms, strategy meetings, investor calls, quarterly planning sessions. At this point, every business is asking the same question. How do we actually use AI to become more efficient, more productive, and more competitive? And while there are plenty of companies promising magical AI solutions, the reality is that AI is only as good as the information that feeds it. That's why NetSuite is interesting. NetSuite by Oracle is the number one AI Cloud ERP trusted by more than 43,000 businesses. What makes it different is that it brings together the core systems running your company financials, inventory, commerce, hr, CRM into a single source of truth. Instead of spending time chasing spreadsheets, reconciling reports, manually moving information between systems, NetSuite can intelligently automate routine tasks, deliver actionable insights, help reduce costs, and support faster decision making with confidence. Whether you're in software, healthcare, manufacturing, financial services, or any number of other industries, NetSuite can be customized to fit the way your company actually works. Whether your company generates millions or hundreds of millions in revenue, NetSuite helps you stay ahead of the pack. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get our free business guide demystifying AI at netsuite.com Shapiro that guide is free to you at netsuite.com Shapiro Again. Netsuite.com Shapiro we'll get some more on this in just one moment. First, a lot of people think that investing is only for rich people. This is a dumb idea. It turns out that everyone thinks that you have to have everything figured out before you start investing. You need like a finance degree or a gigantic amount of money, or you need to monitor the markets all day long like you're in Wall Street. Well, because of that, a lot of people delay investing for years. And that's one reason why apps like Acorns have become so useful. Acorns is a financial wellness app designed to make investing feel much more approachable. The idea is simply helping people start building healthier financial habits over time. One thing Acorns does very well is making the process feel manageable. You can sign up in minutes, connect your cards automatically, invest spare change through their roundups feature, where everyday purchases get rounded up and the difference gets invested automatically. Acorns also lets users set up recurring investments starting at just a few bucks and choose from diversified portfolios based on different goals and risk preferences. Financial wellness is all about sustainable habits. Acorns also keeps everything centralized in one place, which matters because most people already feel overwhelmed by financial information. Sign up right now. Acorns will boost your new account with a $5 bonus. Investment Join the over 14 million all time customers who've already saved and invested over $27 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.comshapiro or download that Acorns app to get started. Paid non client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns tier 2 compensation provided potential subject to various factors such as customers, accounts, age and investment settings does not include Acorns fees. Results do not predict or represent the performance of any Acorns portfolio and investment results will vary. Investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor View Important disclosures@acorns.com Shapiro True self reliance begins with taking control of your health Our sponsor, Armor Colostrum harnesses nature's original blueprint for resilience. Our bodies face constant pressure from toxins, processed foods, relentless stress. Armor Colostrum is a bioactive whole food, a pure concentrate of bovine colostrum that's sustainably sourced with a commitment to calf first sourcing with over 400 bioactive nutrients and it fortifies your entire gut wall system and strengthens your immune system from the cellular level up. This means balanced immune health, better digestion, less bloating and support for healthy metabolism and fat burning from the inside out. Elite athletes have been using Colostrum for years because it enhances nutrient absorption, builds lean muscle and speeds recovery. But the benefits go way deeper. Cellular level support for hair, skin energy, everything. This isn't processed or manipulated. It's pure, potent and natural. Your body's blueprint for rebuilding itself the way it was designed to function with. When you invest in your health, you invest in your ability to show up fully, think clearly and stay in control no matter what comes your way. We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Head on over to armor.comshapiro or enter Shapiro to get 30% off your first subscription Order. That's armra.comshapiro I know that your pretending skills are very good, Michael. I'm fully aware of that.
- [03:58]
B
Can someone turn my ears down?
- [03:59]
A
I don't Drew's worse at pretend. Drew is better at self delusion but worse at pretend.
- [04:06]
C
I'm awful at preten pretend. I just like can't stop saying but.
- [04:09]
A
You're really good at convincing you're right enough, but the problem is that you're able to convince yourself of things that ain't so.
- [04:15]
C
Not true. Not true. I have been right about this thing.
- [04:18]
B
Save it for the show. Save it for the show.
- [04:21]
C
Save it for the show.
- [04:22]
B
Can someone turn my.
- [04:26]
A
I think the most important thing is that Syria gets to. Syria should read Lebanon. That's what I learned today is that Syria should run Lebanon. That Iran actually is owed money and that we should actually allow them to have as many missiles as they want. Cuz that's only fair. Those are some of the things that are only fair. You know, I'm excited to learn all these things.
- [04:42]
B
Hold on. I had here for the top of the show that we were gonna talk about something else. Cause I had this really interesting interview with one of the survivors of the grooming gangs in the UK's massive report out, the rape gangs and all. But clearly we're not gonna start with that. We're gonna start by talking about Ben's favorite deal which is the MoU on Iran. This is friendly fire, friends like these cooties, enemies like these schoolies and the Shapiro armistice in Tehran. Ben, what's your favorite part of the deal?
- [05:15]
A
Oh man, I'm not sure what to pick. I mean I really. There's so many wonderful aspects to it. I'm not sure whether it's the immediate release of sanctions without any further guarantee of, of anything remotely like nuclear disarmament.
- [05:27]
B
I think that wasn't true.
- [05:29]
A
Well, you can hear what you want or you could just read the text. You could. Then, then I'm not sure whether I also like the part where we essentially say that these straight of hormones can be told. That's really exciting news. Very, very into that. Very, very into the idea that Iran should have massive funds released to it. The President said that today. That was great. Or the part where he said that essentially the Syrians should take over Lebanon, which is an interesting idea that worked brilliantly between 1970 and 2005 when the Syrians literally ran Lebanon and it didn't go so hot. So just from, from where I sit on this, there were five main goals of this war. Nuclear disarmament, permanent nuclear disarmament, reducing ballistic missile stockpile and destroying their capacity to actually build new ballistic missiles. Because it was the ballistic missile umbrella that was the cause of the war in the first place. The, the cutoff in support to terror groups, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. And then the fifth point would be when all of that is done, maybe some form of economic loosening. But when all the first four were done and so far from what I see, none of Those things is happening now. Again, that doesn't mean that in the long run, again, it's an mou. So we should start off with this. It's an mou. An MOU doesn't mean anything. It's basically like a non binding term sheet. The really biggest problem with this thing is that it releases a bunch of money to Iran. Right up top, there's already oil flowing out of Iran. One of the, one of the original
- [06:54]
B
oil money is one thing. I mean, look on this point, before we get into exactly what was good, what was bad, I just got off the phone with senior US officials and they read through verbatim the MoU, which was very similar to a lot of the copies of the text that had been going around. So directionally it's all the same. There were some little quibbles, but also worse.
- [07:13]
A
Also worse. Actually, what they read to you guys was actually worse with regard to the Strait of Hormuz. But put that aside.
- [07:18]
B
Now listen, I mean, look, opening the Strait of Hormuz I think is a good thing, but we can get into that in a second. The top line of it though, that the administration seems keen to make clear and we'll see what happens over the weekend in Geneva, is that Iran, they'll open the Strait of Hormuz, there will be no tolls whatsoever for 60 days. Then again, this is just what I'm hearing. Don't shoot the messenger. This is what I'm hearing from the U.S. no, no, no, no, no.
- [07:41]
A
You say for 60 days, very, very softly at the end.
- [07:44]
B
No, no, but then they even address that. And afterward, you know, they said then there will have to be cooperation among the Gulf states to figure out what the protocol looks like moving forward. And the argument, at least from the admin, is that the other Gulf states are not going to allow Iran to have a toll on the straits. So take that for what it's worth then in terms of the sanctions relief. No sanctions relief whatsoever. Iranian oil can flow, but none of the many other sanctions that Trump himself boosted up on Iran will be lifted until after the deal and crucially until after we get nuclear dust. Now, the actual way in which we would get the nuclear dust seems to be a little unclear. It could be us actually going in ourselves and taking it. But anyway, that would have to be figured out. Then this $300 billion from the Gulf states, that again would would not include the United States giving a single penny necessarily to it. It would be the Gulf states themselves investing in Iran to help rebuild Iran, which I think actually could be a decent thing. And crucially, what it would do is stop the choking off of the Strait of Hormuz and 20% of the world's oil supply, on top of the destruction of the Iranian military, the obliteration, at least for now, of Iran's nuclear program and inspections and all the rest. Now, with that said, Ben, you said that, that the point of this, the chief point of this war was to end Iran's nuclear ambitions permanently. And I think that'd be great. I'd love to do it, but I don't think there's any world this side of heaven in which you end Iran's weapons.
- [09:10]
A
Trump said that. I didn't say that. Trump said that. And so did J.D. vance and so did the Secretary of State. So I just want to make clear that the five goals that I laid out at the beginning were not just things that I thought were good, which is why I agreed with them. They were explicit goals of the administration.
- [09:23]
B
Do you think we can permanently end Iran's nuclear program?
- [09:27]
A
Yes, I do think we can permanently end Iran's nuclear weapon.
- [09:29]
B
Iran will never seek another nuclear weapon. How would we do that?
- [09:32]
A
Okay, the way that you would do that is you would bomb Kharg island, you would bomb the South Powers at gas fields, you would permanently defenestrate their economy and make it literally impossible for them to fund the rebuilding of any of those efforts. And you would just give overwatch to our allies in the region like Israel and UAE and pull out. That's what that would look like.
- [09:47]
B
So you. So at that point, let's say that you bomb Carg island, you completely. I mean, what we're talking about, there truly is regime change. Trump himself is saying we kind of got regime change. But what you're talking about is truly you obliterate the Iranian regime and then what happens? What happens if the country descends into civil war? What happens?
- [10:04]
A
What happens if, you know, you know what happens with civil war ridden countries? They don't have the capacity or the willpower to develop nuclear weapons. That you were asking me how you solved the nuclear weapons problem, and I just answered that question. But the reality is that when it comes to the deal, to go back to the deal for one second, I know that the administration is trying to sell the idea that the only way that we could get out of this was either that we basically bribe them, because that's what this is, or. Or that there's endless war. And that isn't true. It's not true. We could, by the way, one Solution here would have been, I mean, the other in terms of opening up the strait of hormones.
- [10:37]
B
Well, you just said civil war, but that's endless war and that's it.
- [10:41]
A
No, that's not that. That. No, that is not what I said. What you said is the alternative to civil war. What I said is a permanently weak regime with the oversight of our allies, looking over their nuclear facilities, their missile facilities, raids every so often, mowing the grass, as they like to say, in the Middle East. That is one possibility. Another possibility would have been that we allow for and help our allies in the region, including Saudi, uae, Bahrain, and yes, Qatar, to actually run the Strait of Hormuz. Right. We tried to do that with Project Freedom for five seconds before the President was convinced out of it by somebody. The notion that the only two choices here are permanent endless bloody war or complete surrender, that is a Barack Obama model. That is what Barack Obama said about the 2015 Iran deal. And basically, if you're going to use that same logic here, then, you know, I don't think it was good then, I don't think it's good now. And I think that it also happens to be untrue. And these sort of concessions that are being made right now to Iran, again, this is an mou. I want to emphasize. Again, the MOU is preliminary, okay? So the only thing that I'm deeply upset about right now in the MoU, they're really a couple of things. There's what's clearly not in even any future negotiations. Support for terrorism is not in any future negotiations. Ballistic missile negotiations. Not in any future negotiations. None of that is part of the MoU when it comes to the. Well, in a way.
- [11:53]
B
Hold on, Ben. In a way, Hezbollah is not written out in the MOU in the 14 point document. But what the administration is at least saying about the MoU is that because we are not giving Iran any money, we're not freezing, unfreezing any assets, we're not lifting all these sanctions.
- [12:07]
A
But immediately that's not true. Hold on, hold on, hold on, Michael, One second. One clarification. No. One clarification on the sanctions. Then you go back to the terrorism. Okay, clarification on the sanctions. There are several different things we're talking about when we talk about sanctions. One is the full scale sanctions on the Iran, on the Iranian economy. Those don't all go away. The sanctions on the export of oil and petrochemicals go away immediately. Okay? Immediately. And that includes in the provisions. It includes the removal of financial sanctions and insurance sanctions on Any of that stuff. So right now, before the war, for example, there were in fact sanctions on Iran's oil capacity in terms of export and import, in that they had to use, for example, ghost fleets in order to move their oil around because anybody who was attempting to do business with them was sanctioned. That all goes away immediately. Not in 60 days, not after negotiation. That goes away like two days ago. Now. It goes away two days ago because they shut off the Strait. Which means, realistically speaking, what are we talking about? What we are talking about is Iran maintains control of the strait. Anyone attempting to argue that Iran does not have now permanent capacity to shut down the strait anytime they want is lying to you. It's not true.
- [13:13]
B
Didn't Iran. But isn't the point. And we'll get to the proxies in a second. But isn't the point. Iran obviously had this capacity. One thing we learned in this war is that Iran's ability to close the strait is, frankly, a more powerful weapon than the potential nuclear weapon that they were seeking. And so they obviously had that power. It's true the oil sanctions would be lifted immediately, in part because we're saying if you reopen the strait, all the oil's gonna flow and the concession is including Iranian oil. But in terms of the funding of the proxies, at least what the administration is saying about the mou, and I think you can read that in the text, is that the United States only starts to unfreeze assets. The United States only starts to lift the actual sanctions on Iran's economy based on performance. So getting the nuclear dust and them cooperating with the regions in the Gulf and also with the United States. So you could say that we're offering the opportunity to give them money, but clearly, if they're gonna be funding Hezbollah and Hezbollah is gonna keep attacking Israel or any of our other allies, then according to the administration's framework, they're not gonna give them a penny in extra relief.
- [14:14]
A
Okay? But the problem, they haven't been quite
- [14:16]
C
clear about whether they're going to let money flow from other places, which I think is just as bad. There's absolutely no difference. You know, I gotta say, you guys, my personal favorite commentator, namely me, started out saying at the very beginning of this war that this war is on a timer, and the timer, I think, has run out. And the reason it's on a timer is because our. Our interests and the interests of our great friend and probably staunchest ally, Israel, are almost the same, but they're not the same. Iran at this moment at this moment, Iran is an existential threat to Israel. The existential threat to the United States of America right now is the Democratic Socialists of America, who are ginned up, you know, who are ginned up, who are training their candidates, who are well funded, completely motivated, and really a danger. And I think Trump is thinking about this, and I don't just think it's, oh, it's politics. I think this is a serious, serious problem to our way of life and our country and our future. So I don't see this as a deal at all. I think if I had to choose between you two guys, which would just be like one of my nightmares, having to choose between you guys, but I would say that Knowles is being way, way too rosy. I think Ben has been a little too dark. But still, it's probably worse than what Knowles is saying. But the first sentence out of Shapiro's mouth is the one that I go with. This is not a deal. This is a ceasefire. It's an extended ceasefire that if they violate it, I do seriously believe that before Trump allows himself to look like a loser, he will blow that country off the face of the earth. And so I think that what he's counting on is, he's counting on he can stretch this out until the midterms and make the midterms just a little less bad than they're otherwise going to be. And I think that's what this is about and that we should talk about it without including the danger to America that America faces from these incredibly insane leftists. It's just not taking the full measure of the situation. The full measure of the situation is we are under attack from within. Israel is under attack from without. All my heart is with Israel. I hope they do great. I think we should supply them with any weapons they need. But at some point, we have to stop this because people want to see Trump paying attention to the world at home and they're tired of 20 years of war in the Middle East.
- [16:35]
A
So, number one, I think that's. Listen, I think it's an interesting argument. I think that there are long term ramifications to the stuff that happens right now. And of course, if things change, then I will change my opinion. Right? I was very much in favor of what the President was doing at the beginning. I'm not in favor of what the President is doing right now. If he changes any about faces, I'm sure I will be in favor of that. I should mention at this point, our sponsors over at Kalshi suggest that 42% of people believe that there will be some sort of nuclear deal before October, 48% before November, 53% before December. I'm going to go with 0% on this, by the way. I think the chances of a long lasting nuclear deal with the Iranians very, very low, specifically because the President does not want to do JCPOA 2.0, but worse. And so I think that the idea that he is going and the only thing, the irgc. Here's the fundamental thing. The IRGC has not changed. They're exactly the same as they ever were. The notion that. And I really. This stuff I do actually think is really bad. You know, when the Vice President of the United States was supposed to head on over to Switzerland and do a grip and grin with Mohamed Khaliba, the head of the Iranian Parliament and a member of the IRGC and a person who is at least partially responsible for the murder of 42,000 people in the streets. And by the way, the targeting of American troops and the almost killing of a couple of American pilots last week, like that is not a good look because they are not reasonable people. They are not reasonable actors. And elevating them to the status of they ought to shake the hands of the Vice President, I think is a mistake for J.D. vance on a political level. I think it's also a mistake for the administration on a moral level. As far as the electoral argument Drew, this is a point that I was making on my show earlier. It's really interesting. I think that a lot of presidents tend to believe that as the economy goes, so go I. And there's some truth to that. If there's a big depression, the President gets walloped. If the economy is doing well, the President still tends to not do particularly well in the midterms. One thing is, however, very, very clear. The American people hate losing wars. They hate it. If you go back and you remember the Biden administration, I know it feels like it was a lifetime ago. If you remember the first year of the Biden administration, inflation jumped right off the bat. You remember this. By the middle of the summer, it was already well in excess of 5%. It was headed up toward 9%. And his approval ratings were still in the mid-50s. And the reason they were still in the mid-50th is because people can actually weather a little bit of economic turmoil. They did under Barack Obama too. And he wasn't super popular, but he wasn't super unpopular. What finished Joe Biden as the president, and it was the thing that everyone tends to forget was the withdrawal from Afghanistan. You can look at it in the poll. September, when he withdrew from Afghanistan, his opinion poll numbers went from 52% all the way down to 39. And then they just stayed there for the rest of time. Doesn't mean all the stuff he did otherwise wasn't important. It was. But it is indicative of the fact that the American people, we don't like getting into wars, but if we're going to be in a war, we really do not like losing wars, and we don't like to be humiliated by tinpoc dictatorships who have their own people out there saying, by the way, everything that I'm saying about the deal and what the deal is being interpreted as. Here's the thing, when I make a contract with somebody, it has to be a meeting of the minds, right? The terms have to have a definition, and those definitions have to be accepted by both sides. If you have the Trump administration saying this amounts to the nuclear disarmament of Iran, it amounts to no more support for terrorism. It amounts to the opening of the strait. And you have the Iranians saying this amounts to no nuclear disarmament, this amounts to the strait will now be told by us. And it amounts to Israel does not have freedom of action in Lebanon anymore. Well, that's not what you normally call a meeting of the pints. That means that no one actually agrees on anything. And so what this comes down to in the end is basically, we are bribing the Iranians to open the strait. That's all.
- [19:58]
C
The other thing, the other thing you have to take into account here, Ben, and you can't just look at it without this, you know, Donald Trump, like all of us, his best feature and his worst feature are the same features. And his worst feature is that big hole in his face right under his nose. I mean, the stuff that comes out of that mouth of his is, first of all, it's only. It's only its shelf life is about 20 minutes, he says, you know, you just have to kind of take it, you know, with a pound of salt. So a lot of the promises he made, I agree with Knowles on this. There's no way, without actually just destroying this country, you can guarantee that it'll never be a nuclear power. He's gone a long way to making it much more difficult for them to get back. But I don't think. I don't think there's any chance of him allowing himself to look like a loser in this war. I just think it's something that he cannot do. He can't sleep at night. If that happens.
- [20:50]
A
J.D.
- [20:50]
C
vance, by the way, J.D. vance.
- [20:52]
A
I hope you're right.
- [20:52]
C
The bad news about J.D. vance is he has definitely lowered his chances of becoming president. The good news is I think he's destroyed Knowles future political career, which I
- [21:01]
B
think Vance and I agree on too much.
- [21:04]
C
Yeah. But I think that.
- [21:07]
A
By the way, I actually agree with this, Drew. And I think that one of the things that's happening here is I do not think that President Trump was deeply embedded or invested in these negotiations. For example. Right. I don't think he's. He's sitting there and he's haggling over the details. I think, frankly, his negotiators were telling him what he wanted to hear. And so that's why you hear the president saying things that are certainly not in the document. And then you read the document like, this is not in the document. This. I would bet dollars to donuts that his negotiators were telling him that basically this yield was gonna give him everything he could possibly want in life. And he believed them. And then he was like, okay, sounds great, great deal.
- [21:37]
B
And then it turns out that the
- [21:39]
A
deal doesn't actually do those things.
- [21:40]
B
Hold on. I was told that for a while that we were, you know, when people were claiming that Netanyahu or somebody dragged Trump into war, we were told we were denying Trump's agency, and, you know, we were just blaming wicked advisors, but it's never the king's fault or anything. Do you really not think that Trump wants. I think he wants out. I think he had a discrete interest here.
- [22:02]
A
Oh, I agree.
- [22:02]
B
He wants out. And so he wanted to end the Iranian nuclear program, or there's no ending it, but there's seriously setting it back. I think he did seriously set it back, and he destroyed their military. And the deal is hinging on nuclear dust, so we'll see if we even get a deal out of it. But I think he wanted that, and I think other people wanted regime change. And I think Drew's point is right, that the US and Israel interests overlap substantially, much if not most of the time, because. But sometimes they diverge a little. If I were the PM of Israel, I would insist upon regime change. For the US It's a little less important. And there are more domestic concerns to focus on, too. And I don't think he really was gung ho about regime change. He left open the possibility. He called on the Iranians to rise up. They didn't. This Mueller regime, this awful, evil Mueller regime has lasted twice as long as the CIA regime that we installed in 1953. So they're a little stronger than a lot of us gave it credit for. And I don't think he's walking into this blind or being misguided by advisors. I think he wants that. And from the beginning of this, to your point, Drew, I don't mean to be too rosy about the deal. I'm just telling you what I've heard. But I said from the very beginning, I said the two ways this ends are with a deal that's gonna be unsatisfactory to basically everybody or with a protracted war that's gonna lead to a lot of civil war in the region, destabilization.
- [23:18]
C
And it certainly is true. It certainly is true that while Vance made a stupid statement about how all wars end with negotiations, which isn't true, it is true that all wars in the Middle east end in this blurry kind of, who knows what happens. And it's, you know, eventually we're going to get back to shooting at each other mess that every single one ends like this. And I think that that's where we're at. And I actually don't think, I mean, the stuff that Trump has been saying about Netanyahu was at least yesterday, now he's kind of dialed it back is absurd. But I do think Netanyahu might just lay low for like a week, just a week, let Trump get to the point that he wants to get at. I do believe that Trump will not allow himself to look like a loser in this war. He won't let it happen. And the harder, you know, you notice the press is being very quiet about this. They usually lambaste him for everything he does. But the left wing press is being quiet about this cuz they know if he starts to feel that he's being depicted as a loser, he's gonna go back in there with guns.
- [24:20]
A
I think left wing press is being pretty quiet about this because they think that it's Obama's deal. I mean, Obama is saying that it's Obama's deal. So again, the only thing that I'm saying about, about, you know, President Trump and his advisers is that I agree that President Trump wants out. I agree with you, Michael, that President Trump wants out. I think whichever adviser told him that he can get out in the fashion that gives him the best possible headline is the one that he listened to. Even if those advisors were not exactly being straight with him about what was in the deal.
- [24:47]
C
Because that's my point, that he would
- [24:50]
B
not be able to sleep well at night. If he thought he was a loser. And Trump won't allow that to happen. But if you wanna sleep well at night, you know what you need? You need your Helix mattress. Baby. I got a house full of them, okay? And I'm not involved in Iran negotiations at all. My biggest concerns are what cigar I'm gonna smoke that day. So if you want to have the best sleep of your life, you need Helix. They have over 20 mattress models, so whether you run hot, you sleep on your side. You need extra support. There is one built for you. They even have some cooling upgrades, great for summer nights. Helix is the most awarded mattress brand tested and reviewed by experts like Forbes and Wired. Free shipping right to your door in the US a 120 night sleep trial and a light limited lifetime warranty. So you can try it totally risk free. But that doesn't matter because you're going to love it and you're going to buy them for your kids if you're a good father like me. So right now you need to go to helixsleep.com dailywire for 20% off site wide, 25% off luxe mattresses, 30% off elite mattresses. I know we pillory the elite sometimes. The elite mattress we should never pillory. You should pillow your elite mattress and rest your head on it very soundly. Helixsleep.com Dailywire 20% off site wide, 25% off lux, 30% off elite. Make sure to enter our show at checkout so they know that we sent you.
- [26:00]
A
Helixsleep.com DailyWire Michael, I mean, I'm very impressed by the shift from pillory to pillow. That was somewhat clever wordplay. Yeah, I kind of enj it. Well, speaking of clever people, Matt Nuclear is joining the Daily Wire. So for those who are unaware, Matt Nuclear is very, very able in debate. If you ever watch him on Jubilee, if you have ever seen him in the online world, he is now launching a new show with us in which he is basically going to be streaming and taking all comers. You can watch it Monday through Thursday, 7pm Eastern live on YouTube at the nuclear reaction. Here's some of the trailer. One very young man absolutely slaughtered. Amanda Seals is poisonous ideolog.
- [26:43]
D
That's just the truth. And you're un American, you're uneducated and your IQ is around 50.
- [26:48]
B
This is a masterclass. Why are you so scared to debate the truth? You've been making this about Israel. You, sir, are a hypocrite. It is Matt Nuclear.
- [26:55]
A
Matt Nuclear. Matt Nuclear.
- [26:57]
D
No one's afraid of you. Okay, you're supposedly on the DEI council, but I have to teach you this stuff. Why should I think that the white man is the oppressor when black men
- [27:04]
E
are more likely to kill me?
- [27:06]
A
The world has chosen the nuclear reaction, Matt. Nuclear. He. I believe he's joining us on the line and when he does.
- [27:22]
C
There he is.
- [27:22]
A
There we go. Yeah, there he goes. Hey, Matt, congrats on the show. Really exciting stuff. So tell us a little bit about what people can expect.
- [27:30]
D
Yeah, so like the show is going to be pretty chaotic. It's gonna be live action debates. So like, just think like Radio Collins. Anyone is going to be able to call in and debate certain topics I'm going to have up there. They're going to be pretty controversial topics about domestic policy, foreign policy. People can call in and we're going to be doing some like live action debates. We're going to add a level of comedic comedy. So like sound effects and different stuff like that. And yeah, it's going to be really fun, maybe some reactions and going over different stuff. But it's going to be, you know, live sort of Internet shock debate, you know, stuff like Jubilee, but just with Collins people calling into the show.
- [28:09]
C
Hey, Matt, can I ask you a question? First of all, welcome, welcome to the team. It's great to have you on board. I have the hardest time getting any left wingers to talk to me and I'm not even a debater. I will listen to anybody and let them have their say. How are you gonna get people who disagree with you to come on? They're such scaredy cats.
- [28:27]
B
Right?
- [28:27]
D
So, I mean, I originally actually started doing this about a year and a Half ago with TikTok Live Debates. TikTok actually has a really good guest call in feature called Multigest. And so people will scroll on TikTok and I'll show up on their TikTok feed with a few prompts that they probably disagree with or they may agree with, whatever it may be, and they will just basically request. When I actually first started doing TikTok live debates, I would have 30 people in the guest request just waiting to come in and it's very chaotic. The chat goes crazy. It's really exciting and really fun stuff and we converse about everything like racial politics, domestic policy, foreign policy, everything in between.
- [29:06]
C
That's great.
- [29:07]
A
So Matt is. Matt is 19 years old, by the way, folks. Matt, for those who don't know what. Yeah, yeah. I mean, some of us started really young. I mean, Drew was never young.
- [29:17]
B
So he doesn't.
- [29:18]
A
He doesn't know. But for those of us who are once. Who were once young, Matt, so obviously you have very, very strong political opinions. How did you get where you are politically? Who are sort of your formative thinkers that you focused on?
- [29:32]
D
Well, one I would say is definitely you. I've always been a big fan of you. I would say even since I was, like, really young, before I really knew anything about politics, I would see Ben Shapiro, videos of him destroying the Libs. I remember that one time it was like some radical transgender person that threatened to send you home in an ambulance, which didn't make a lot of logical sense. And Thomas Soule, obviously, I've read his book Disparities in Discrimination. He's also amazing. You know, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, many other different influential writers when it comes to liberalism and conservatism that I've, you know, obviously read. And I've just been sort of creating, you know, my opinion from the, like, research I've actually been doing on different subjects and so on.
- [30:13]
B
And then. So you started out, obviously, you're extremely young compared to us. You were in utero. And you've been, you know, coming up on all these writers and thinkers. Now you're joining the Daily Wire, some would say we inked a nuclear deal. So I'm glad that we got at least one of those in the world.
- [30:29]
A
Right.
- [30:30]
E
Yeah.
- [30:30]
B
What's your vision for the show? I mean, how much of it is gonna be live debate? Are you gonna be out there mixing it up, traveling around? Are you gonna take on only the libs? Are you gonna take on part of the right? Are you gonna take on one of my favorite horses to whip, which is the libertarians? Where do you see it going?
- [30:48]
D
Well, I'll take on anybody, whether you're far right or far left or in between or whatever it may be, and you have a question, you can always come up and. And get a debate with me. I'm going to be trying to do different speaking events and engagements, which I've kind of already done a little bit of. And I will be traveling for other live debates and just doing all sorts of different things. But regardless of where you are on the political aisle, I will have a conversation. I'll have a conversation with absolutely everybody, but I will also be trying to mostly keep it to, like, live debates. But there will be moments where I'll be going over certain things on X or YouTube or reacting really quickly or even maybe going on some monologues. Right. But I will try to keep it mostly about live debates and Also answering the chat and keeping up with questions and stuff.
- [31:35]
B
In terms of the issues that are really animating you right now, this is one thing I've noticed. You talk about the old Ben's Destroys videos, which just completely took over the entire world. And since we were all doing that out there on the college campuses and Ben is shutting down the city of Berkeley, I've noticed as I go to the different schools, the issues have changed a lot. It used to be in 2016, free speech was the big issue, then it became transgenderism. Then religion has really taken a big role in the last few years, which is terrific. But all of these big debates, what is it that you see really animating the zoomers? What really animates you? If you didn't have a Helix mattress, what issues would keep you up at night?
- [32:17]
D
Well, I think the issues that would still keep me up at night would be issues in reference to the border, issues in reference to racial politics in America, things in reference to De ei affirmative action, discriminations. That's actually what I first went viral for when I debated Amanda Steals and I went on Ben show for the first time. And so those issues, I think will always keep me up. Leftist, social and economic policy, those things domestically speaking. But I also went pretty viral also, just generally when it comes to what I've been doing for also discussing Israel. And when I first started doing TikTok lives, at first I started talking about Trump and I also started talking about Zionism and different things in reference to that. And a lot of people really got mad at me and it became chaotic and I kept doing my research and we just kept debating it over and over again. And so I think one big thing that's kind of encapsulated conservative, liberal, leftist, right wing media in America is the Israel question. You know, Zionism, Israeli political influence stuff in reference to that. And I've been having a lot of a series of debates about that, especially the Israel Palestine conflict. So that's one thing in when we're talking about in regards to foreign policy that I also discuss quite frequently.
- [33:25]
B
Wait, people are interested in Israel? Are people talking about them? It's news to me.
- [33:30]
D
Yeah, yeah, very big.
- [33:34]
C
When you look at the country, since you have no past, you have no reference points because you're only just born. When you look at the country, do you think like, the good guys are winning, the good guys are losing?
- [33:46]
D
I think the good guys, I mean, I don't know whether or not the good guys are necessarily losing. I think that there is a hyper fixation on Israel, especially from the far right and the far left. It's kind of creating this sort of horseshoe theory phenomenon where people like Chenk Uyghur, Ana Kasparian are sort of in alignment with other people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and all sorts of other people that are on the right, like Nick Fuentes, for example. And so they're creating that sort of weird coalition to go against. I believe Western values that, well, Islam isn't really a threat and that Israel really is evil in comparison to the entire Middle east, and that you can really make allies with anybody, regardless of beliefs and. And so on. But I believe that that has been a popular thing and they have been winning in terms of popularity when it comes to that. But I agree with what Ben said when he was discussing that and responding to that. The popularity of opinions don't validate them and that facts don't care about your feelings. So regardless of how popular it is, it doesn't really matter.
- [34:44]
C
Also popular for a podcaster and popular for a guy running for nationwide reelection. Two entirely different things.
- [34:51]
B
Talk about diverging interests, there's no doubt about that. You mentioned the economics and the class warfare, and obviously Thomas Sowell is excellent on that. What do you make? I've noticed this too, a little bit on the right, but much more on the left. Elon Musk, who is one of the most productive individuals of any of our lifetimes, if not the most productive. He becomes the world's first trillionaire as he's creating all these really great products, preserves the American public square on Twitter, and everyone hates him for it. Do you see a lot of that kind of class envy, resentment? Obviously now the young left especially is willing to take on the moniker of socialism. Are we just careening toward communism forever?
- [35:35]
D
It almost kind of seems like it. Well, the left always sort of like tries to fight some sort of social injustice, whether it comes to billionaires or wealthy people or people that don't feel oppressed, et cetera. I would say that. But yeah, that is something that the left has been discussing and has been sort of like, I could say leaning towards right, like Zoram Albani, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, aoc All of these sorts of people are calling themselves democratic socialists and they sort of align more with those ideals. Bernie Sanders has been running on this whole thing with taxing the billionaires and so on and so forth. But again, I still think that they believe that Elon Musk has a trillion dollars, the same way that Scrooge McDuck had a trillion dollars. It's like Elon Musk just goes into his. There's like a trillion coins or something like that. You know what I mean? Which is not the case. I mean, if you were to rapidly liquidate those assets, it'd be horrible for everyone, including 401ks, people's pensions, different stock options, and so on and so forth. So it's not the way people envision it. Right. It's the asset value of the company increasing because people are actually interested in purchasing products from his companies. It's not the same way that it's him hoarding money, which is the misunderstanding that people have.
- [36:48]
B
That's obviously true. And I think, you know, socialism and communism in all its forms is just evil and satanic. But there is an interesting kind of critique that comes out of wealth inequality. One is that the palace is never safe when the cottage is unhappy. But then the other one is that we have a right to private property. But nevertheless, this comes from Catholic social teaching that there is a universal destination of goods. In other words, we have real rights to private property, but we also have obligations to each other in society. And so people are trying to pretend like Elon is doing backflips in his pile of gold. But what occurs to me from that critique is Elon actually is living up to those responsibilities. He puts aside his companies for a second to go help the government become more efficient. He puts $44 billion to put his money where our mouth is to go preserve the public square. Cause conservatives were being discriminated against. So in a way, I think he's like the worst example of a guy who's not civic minded or irresponsible or something.
- [37:43]
A
Okay, so this is where this is great. So now. And I'm going to pummel you, Knowles. The moment has come.
- [37:47]
B
I was setting you up for that. I was setting you up for this conversation. I know. Here we go.
- [37:51]
A
Okay, so the social good that Elon Musk does is not because he went into Doge, which again, was overall not supremely successful. The overall good that he does is called Tesla and SpaceX. That is the overall good that he does. And this is. This is one of the things that, you know, it's interesting. I've been making my way through the Vice President's new books. Obviously he's on a book tour, and so we all got free copies of the book. So thanks to the publisher. Appreciate it. And the Vice President takes a position with regard to the meritocracy. The book is largely a repudiation of hillbillyology. It really is kind of fascinating. His book is essentially hillbilly elegy was me being seduced into the meritocratic secularism of the Yale elite. And then I discovered God and religion again. And now I don't really believe in that stuff anymore. And I really actually much more believe in sort of Catholic social teaching. Ririm Navarro and the rest of it. That really is essentially the theme of the book. And one of the things that he is constantly talking about in the book, book in. In again, almost Tucker Carlson esque fashion. He has a line in there where he says, you know, the economy, we don't work for the economy. The economy works for us. Which of course is kind of a bizarre. Is it? Well, it's a bizarre category error. It's like saying we don't work for free speech. Free speech works for us. When you're talking about a reality in the world that is called a market. And the idea that there ought to be somebody at the top of that market who is legitimately figuring out the best redistribution of wealth and resources is a massive centralized government error. And so, you know, I think that when we talk about Elon, the resistance to Elon's wealth is driven by a few things. One is just pure envy. Obviously you see this. I'm not accusing the vice president of this. I think that you're seeing a lot of people who are. Who are doing the pure envy. Elon's really rich. I'm not as rich as Elon. I wish I were as rich as Elon. No one should be as rich as Elon unless it were me. But really there shouldn't be anyone as rich as Elon. And you're seeing a lot of that. But I do think that there is also a thing where it's like there ought to be some sort of bizarre guilt that. That attends to success, that the only way that you can sort of justify high levels of material success is by donating a library. And I just don't think that that's right. I think that the reality of the free markets is that if you actually want to ensure that the cottage is secure, Michael, as you put it, then what you actually need is a free market system. The big problem with societies that have castles and cottages is that they were expropriative, is that you're talking about feudalist societies in which there was literally a fixed pie of wealth and the lord would come in and take part of the pie. But that's not what you're talking about. With a free market, we live better than our ancestors.
- [40:12]
B
I agree with a lot of that point. Obviously, the main social good that Elon has done is to create these great innovations and this great wealth, but he feels a responsibility toward others. And I think, Ben, your example actually kind of makes my point, especially when it comes to free speech, which is that, you know, we don't live for free speech. Free speech is in advance of our society. It's not that you want some fat cat central planner sitting on top. What you want is just ordinary guardrails and putting things in their proper place. So when you go to the guys who really promoted free speech, John Locke, John Milton, John Stuart Mill, for some reason it's a lot of johns, all of them are pointing out that free speech is for something. It's not an end unto itself, but it's for getting to.
- [40:54]
C
This is a dangerous argument.
- [40:55]
B
Hold on, hold on. If you want to read the full argument, you can get speechless. Controlling Words, Controlling Minds. Number one national bestseller I've read available, whatever great books are sold.
- [41:03]
C
I think it's propping up my desk here, my short leg on my desk.
- [41:06]
B
But that's not even. I have other critiques of free speech, but what I'm saying is the guys who actually advanced free speech, all of the classical liberals from whom we get our free speech tradition, those are the arguments that they were making. That's not even just my argument. And so when it comes to social responsibility for the economy, I love JD's new book. I think it's terrific. Including when he's talking about the economy, there's this great chapter where he's talking. It's called the Dismal Science, which is a line that he takes from Thomas Carlyle, the conservative, but even Carlyle is kind of borrowing it from Edmund Burke, you know, the founder of modern Anglo American conservatism. Edmund Burke decries the transformation of politics, which he says has lost the age of chivalry and the age of economists, sophisters and calculators has succeeded. And so when you look at an economy, you say, look, obviously we want a lot of economic growth, but it's for something else. And a classic example would be if we were just serving gdp. Well, we could increase GDP by legalizing prostitution, and then our GDP actually would go up. There would be more measured economic activity, but that would actually be bad for society. And I guess the idea, which is a conservative critique of liberalism, going all the way back to Burke and further, is that you can't actually quantify everything you Know cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. And so we have to remember we want all that wealth. We don't want to become commies, but we need it to be for something good. And we can know the good. And if we can't know something about the good, then we can't have self government. Okay, so this is a dangerous argument.
- [42:37]
A
I agree.
- [42:37]
B
Well, take it up with Milton. Don't take it up with me.
- [42:39]
C
No, I mean. I mean, look, first of all, it's a dangerous argument when applied to free speech, because that's an entirely different matter. Those two things don't go together at all. You know, if you are not in charge of what you think and what you say, then guess who is gonna be in charge of what you think and what you say. It's gonna be Pontius Pilate. Why? Because Rome has all the power. And as someone who was alive when Socrates was poisoned and when Christ was crucified, I can tell you that it never works to give authorities the right to censor your speech. But when it comes to the economy, this is something where I'm closer to Ben on this. I do believe that a society should be able to condemn business practices that are legal but reprehensible. But I don't necessarily believe that that makes them a crime. And I think that that's a really big difference. I think, you know, when the boycott went on against Bud Light for putting that clown on their. That transgender clown on their. On their product, I thought that was brilliant. I'm 100% in charge of that. But to have somebody say, oh, no, that's illegal because we don't like transgenderism, It's a totally different thing. The free market is a beautiful, beautiful thing. You are right. It is not the measure of good. And if it were the measure of good, then drug deals and prostitution would be okay. But it's outside of crimes. I think it's up to society and up to the culture to condemn wickedness and evil and to be allowed in their localities to limit it. So I don't think, for instance, you have a right to open a casino anywhere. But I do think that if a state says we're gonna allow the casino to be there, that's a different matter.
- [44:11]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [44:12]
A
I mean, so I agree with. I agree with what Cliven said, but I think there's a broader critique, and Matt will maybe appreciate this sort of take from sowell. So this is a soil take on the, I think, extraordinarily flawed argument that I first saw actually from Yanis Varoufakis, who is a socialist economist, this idea that, you know, economic statistics can't capture the value of a sunset.
- [44:33]
B
Okay, this is, Berkley makes this point. I mean, you saw it, you saw
- [44:36]
A
it in conservatives first, then okay, it's wrong. Okay? The reason I will say that it's wrong is not because of course economics can capture the value of the sunset, but that is a category error. Economics is not trying to tell you how much a sunset is worth. The point is of economics, what are you willing to trade for what? That is literally what economics is about. And so when you say I'm going to completely elide the question of cost and benefit analysis in public policy because you can't value a sunset, that ignores the fact that we routinely value sunsets. We do it by determining how much we are willing, for example, to pay for light. We determine what we are willing to pay in order to enjoy a sunset on a vacation as opposed to doing it from, you know, the back room of our house or apartment. The entire science of economics is not science, but the entire idea of economics, that it's about trade offs. And so if you seek to elide the trade off by pretending that we are, that we don't put a value on anything, that most things look. So there's an example that JD uses in his book that I find particularly absurd from this particular chapter. And the example that he uses is with regard to Japan. And basically he starts his chapter by saying that people are talking about stagnation of the economy in Japan, which has been a massive problem for Japan for legitimately two decades. If you go back to the 1980s, Michael Crichton was writing books about how Japan was going to take over the United States. And if you got to the 1990s, the Japanese economy plummeted and then just stagnated. And it's been stagnating since then. I mean, literally for 30 years it's been stagnating. And he says, well, I don't believe in economics basically because I went to Japan and I tasted their strawberries and I wish I were kidding, but I'm not. He literally says strawberries.
- [46:03]
B
It's a great chapter.
- [46:04]
A
It's, it's, it's, it's one of the worst takes I think I've ever seen. He makes the case that because strawberries taste better in Japan, therefore the economics can't measure that strawberries taste better. Well, that's not true if you have a better tasting strawberry from Japan in the United States, some people will be willing to pay more for that. And actually, if JD had done half a second of research on, for example, Japanese strawberries, the topic that he is writing about, he would understand the reason that strawberries taste better in Japan is because they are a delicacy in Japan. And there is a full scale luxury industry for strawberries in Japan that is designed toward, toward making the best kind of strawberry. So their worst strawberries taste better because in Japan when you go over to somebody's house, you don't bring a bottle of wine. You can bring like a hundred dollar basket of strawberries. So in the same way that economics drives toward better quality at lower prices for certain products in the United States, that is also true in Japan. It doesn't mean that economics doesn't work in Japan. That's like making the argument that when you go to Ethiopia, the coffee there is really, really, really good, therefore economics can't measure that actually Ethiopia is economically rich and doing great. Like that's. It is a completely discombobulated argument, and beyond which the entire argument of his book is essentially that Western societies have been secularized and therefore have lost the qualities that make them good and worthwhile. And that we need to get back to Christianity. In order to do that, I will just point out that Japan is 98% Shinto and murdered all of the Catholic priests who are attempting to go there, attempting to convert everybody. If he likes the strawberries that much, maybe he needs.
- [47:30]
C
Strawberries are great.
- [47:31]
B
The thing about that chapter though is I think you're missing the point of it. Believe it or not, you know, when he's talking about it.
- [47:37]
A
I can't believe you, Michael.
- [47:38]
B
No, I loved that chapter. I love the title because, because he's gonna be pilloried as some left winger or something. But ironically, the argument he's making and the title he's using to do it is the original conservative critique of liberalism. Liberalism, which makes the issue is not involving economics, obviously, it's making an idol out of economics. So the line that JD mentions about the strawberries is he says, look, if the Japanese are willing to pay $6 for a carton of strawberries and someone else pays $6 for another carton of strawberries somewhere el carton of strawberries is better than the other, then the market has actually not taken into account the difference between those things. And so it's kind of an example.
- [48:21]
A
But hold on, it's not true. It's not true on its most fundamental level. If I went to Japan, I would also pay $6 for the really good strawberries, I'd be in Japan.
- [48:30]
B
But the basic point is that the price $6 doesn't take into account qualitative differences. This was an. I mean, this is not true.
- [48:37]
A
It's in different countries. If I went to Japan and I saw crappy strawberries, I would have to sell them for $3.
- [48:42]
B
But if you'll allow me to get
- [48:43]
A
my point, it's like a gigantic economic error. Sorry, go ahead.
- [48:46]
B
If you'll allow me to get to my point, I think we would all agree that a price does not take into account all of the qualitative differences. If that were the case, then my delicious Mayflower cigar for $17 and hanging out with a hooker on some shady part of town for $17 would be the same thing. But they're qualitatively different. So it's not to actually throw out economics.
- [49:07]
C
You know what you can get for $17. I know.
- [49:09]
B
Well, listen, I'll give you a phone number. I got a great. I got a great guy. I mean, girl, I got. Anyway, hold on.
- [49:14]
C
I'm so glad I came to the show.
- [49:15]
B
We're going off the rail. So the point is, like when JD says I realized that economics was all fake, he's obviously exaggerating here. I mean, this is a guy who worked for a venture capital firm. He's obviously not saying that economics itself is fake, but he's making this critique that I think is so important. This is why I don't think it's just a flipping frivolous example. It is very important in conservatives, from the very beginning of conservatism, like 300 years ago, have recognized that, yes, we want growth, we want trade to a considerable degree, but we can't be putting the cart before the horse. I mean, these are arguments that were being made by George Washington, by Alexander Hamilton.
- [49:49]
A
Michael. He's also setting up a massive strawman and then burning it. He's setting up a strawman and then burning it.
- [49:53]
B
He's setting up a strawberry and then burning it.
- [49:55]
C
I think the truth is that Ben agrees with this. He's just so used to a society that has been talked out of, that has been talked out of free trade and been talked out of capitalism that he's on the defensive all the time. But you. You basically agree that, you know, prostitution, no matter how much it makes, is not a good.
- [50:11]
A
Nobody's. Nobody's. Nobody's even arguing that. The problem is that the. JD's argument in that strategy is an argument that proves too much as as with most of his arguments, it's an argument that essentially says there should be limitless capacity for right thinking people to be able to restrict the markets as they see fit in order to achieve social justice. The only limitation on that he establishes zero limiting principle.
- [50:33]
B
The limiting principle from within Catholic social teaching, which you point out is what the book is about is subsidiarity, among other things. So there are all these limiting principles into our federal system.
- [50:43]
A
Michael, that's not a limiting principle. The limiting principle is what he agrees with and that's not a limiting principle. Okay, like the limiting principle which is
- [50:50]
B
built into our government. The idea, I understand local. That decisions are made at the most competent local level possible.
- [50:56]
A
So hold on, wait. So JD is now in favor of San Francisco legalizing prostitution in pot?
- [51:02]
B
No, there are obviously. There are obviously limits beyond that as well. And in a deliberative self government you obviously try to persuade your fellow citizens and there are federal laws against pot. At least we'll see how much longer that goes on. But anyway, yes, but regardless, first of all, I have to say goodbye to Matt. Matt. Nuclear. I'm very excited for you to add even more Nuclear Fire. It's great to have you to this show and to the whole network. So everybody go follow Matt. Nuclear. No, I think. Look, I don't think you really believe that the Vice President or any other conservative who shares his view or someone who believes in Catholic social teaching actually thinks we should have a politburo and have Stalin dictating the price of strawberries or anything else. I don't think you really believe that.
- [51:43]
A
Well, no, I think that what the Vice President believes is that he and his friends should determine what the limiting principles are. And I do not like this. My whole point of having general principles of equal applicability is that there should be delegated powers to the government beyond which you cannot go. And when it gets to Catholic social teaching about economics, there are no places where power cannot go. There may be prudence that you apply.
- [52:06]
E
Yeah.
- [52:06]
A
That is a human quality that you apply to a place of no. Of no actual checks and balances. And this is where I start. Because that is not part of Catholic teaching.
- [52:15]
B
That really isn't. I mean, you know, you get to JP too. And which is rewriting or it's a
- [52:21]
A
way of full aware it's not part of Catholic social. I'm fully aware it's not part of Catholic social teaching, which is why I don't think that Catholic social teaching should be the predicate for American government. No, no.
- [52:28]
B
I'M not the vice president. I'm saying you're misrepresenting Catholic social teaching. I mean, if you just look at one of the great examples of Catholic social teaching, John Paul II's Chantesimus Annus, which is a rewriting of Rerum Novarum, which is where all of this comes from, he extols the virtues of the free market. He just points out that there are also social responsibilities along with it. JP2 was one of the men who took down communism. So I think in this limited example, I think you're taking down a straw man here. If I guess the way we'll find out is if JD becomes president and he installs a collectivist politburo and he outlaws strawberries specifically for Ben Shapiro. I will admit I was wrong, but I don't think that's really what he's arguing.
- [53:03]
A
Well, I mean, I could make you wrong. If it turns out though, when he comes in and he decides to outlaw vast swathes of industry, tax vast swaths of industry, redistribute vast swaths of industry, all to his particular liking, and that is the platform upon which he runs. Again, when you reject meritocracy on the basis that it's some sort of hoodwinkery, I start to have some very serious problems. Especially when the way that you became famous is by participating in the meritocracy in the first place. But you know enough about JD's book. First, let's talk about again. Entrepreneurship. I'm a fan. Knowles actually is a fan too. The truth is that when Knowles and I argue, it's typically over about 3 yards of territory on a 100 yard field. But we make it sound like it's about 80 yards. In any case, we both like entrepreneurship, and odds are that you've spent more time on your next marketing campaign than your insurance policy. And honestly, I get it. Nobody, nobody starts a business because they're passionate about coverage limits and policy language. You start a business to build something. That's what it's for. Now here's the thing. As your business grows, so does your exposure. You hire employees, you expand operations, you take on bigger clients, bigger contracts. Every new opportunity, a new risk. That's just reality. Which is exactly why I want to tell you about Super Sure. Super sure is the super agency built for growing businesses, licensed in every state business insurance and employee benefits, year round support for you and your team. Not once a year, year round. And here's what I actually like. They've built tools that help you understand what you're Buying their fine print fax tool translates your policy into plain English. What's covered, what's not. Where the gaps are. Their business value calculator tells you what your business is actually worth. Because before you protect something, you'd better know what you built. Here's the reality. Insurance should not be a once a year afterthought. It should be a strategy. Go to super sure.com that's super sure.com/appear one super agency, one powerful platform. All your policies in one place again@super sure.com Shapiro. Paid for by Super Sure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency.
- [54:51]
B
You know, one thing I love is people named Michael. And it's why I'm very pleased to bring on right now our pal Michael LaRosa, so we can all beat up some Democrats. Michael, thank you for being here.
- [55:01]
E
Yeah, thanks. Thanks for having me.
- [55:04]
B
So we've been mostly focusing on the right so far because obviously we've got this Iran deal and we've got JD's new book and all this. We're kind of the ruling party right now. We should remember there are still Democrats, and to Drew's point, they are still trying to come back and they'll probably do very well in the midterms, just historically speaking. So what's the state of play right now? Are the Dems just the party of Graham Platner now? Nazi tattoos and, you know, abusing women? Or is there any. Or is Rahm Emanuel going to reforge the Dems into a major governing party party?
- [55:35]
E
Well, I certainly think there have been people on the left who have made it easier for Republicans to call us the party of Graham Platner or Mum Donnie. I'm hoping that's not the case. Look, Rahm is my personal favorite. Him and Newsom, I'm. I'm big fans of. But I think you hear Rahm, I think Rahm is a sleeper candidate from 2028. I think he's talking the way a nominee actually talks, a successful nominee talks. I think actually his biggest strength is what some people view as his weakness as an insider. But 99.9% of the country has no idea that he's an insider and really doesn't know who he is. And I think when they see and hear that kind of fire in the belly, the sort of agility he has, that sort of fight in him to fight on policy, by the way, and the way he's talking about issues that matter to the working class, I think that's gonna really resonate. He'd be someone I'D be happy to see as the nominee.
- [56:43]
B
I also hate to say it, I'm pretty impressed by Rahm Emanuel. I mean, he'd be a terrible president, but I'm pretty impressed by him.
- [56:49]
C
Hey, listen, California makes you a fan of Gavin Newsom, though.
- [56:55]
E
Well, I don't think records matter anymore in politics. If records mattered, JD Vance would never have been on the ticket. And Donald Trump has changed his mind on so many things. I don't think those things matter anymore. Sure, he has a lot to defend if he's held to account and if the voters have a really nuanced and complex depth of understanding of regulatory and tax policy, sure, I'm sure there's a lot he'll have to defend there. But I don't know if that actually matters more than his ability to command a stage, to throw punches, to debate. The PR and communications aspect of politics is a little bit more weighted these days, even for voters.
- [57:40]
A
Michael, when you look at that 2028 race you've mentioned Rahm Manuel, you mentioned Gavin Newsom. The sort of major factor that people keep ignoring in the Democratic primaries is, of course, the outsized weight of the black vote in places like South Carolina. It's what put Joe Biden over the top against Bernie Sanders. It is what put Hillary Clinton over the top, actually, against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. And obviously it was very, very helpful to Barack Obama. When you look at some of the candidates you're talking about, like a Rahm Emanuel or a Gavin Newsom, is there anyone else that you're looking at who has the capacity to capitalize on THE I believe 56% of the voting population in the Democratic primaries in South Carolina is black. I believe it's a majority and a huge percentage of the south as well. Given the heavy sort of majority minority coalition built by Democrats in these states, what does that mean for a Democratic primary where, again, a lot of their top candidates are white, but you might get a Wes Moore, Kamala Harris is probably going to run again. What do you make of that?
- [58:37]
E
Yeah, I mean, you're not wrong about the coalition, the voting coalition in South Carolina. I think that some of the I think the Clintons had a history with black voters. I think Barack Obama was unique and appealing for black voters for a lot of historic reasons. And I think this could be the first probably open test for South Carolina as a primary state, assuming that the calendar stays, keeps South Carolina front and center. And that's sort of the next big test of the DNC chair is to sort of establish the calendar, that's like one of his only jobs. So we need to see where South Carolina falls in the calendar, although I'm just not convinced that. And also, Biden had the advantage of having Jim Clyburn come out and endorse us at a very low point in our campaign. That was do or die, to be honest. I don't know if South Carolina is enough for any one nominee. I just don't believe that because of how many states come after it and the sort of vote rich delegate, rich populations that come after it.
- [59:55]
A
So it does raise the question of sort of moderate candidate versus not moderate candidate, which you're bringing up here, which is that actually the South Carolina voters have tended toward the more moderate candidate and a wide variety of presidential primaries for the Democratic Party in the recent past. But the Democratic Party, as you've also been mentioning, is running headlong off a cliff in terms of some of these primary candidates, like a Grand Platner in Maine or like Abdul El Sayed in Michigan and really embracing some of the more radical aspects of their own party. How wide is that gap going to open before 2028? What happens to the party if you have, say, AOC to Clare for the presidency and also a Pete Buttigieg and also a Gavin Newsom? It's going to be a very crowded field. And how do you see that, that fact breaking down? Because the nice thing for the radicals is they tend to coalesce around one person and meanwhile, all of the pseudo moderates tend to fragment a little bit.
- [60:48]
E
Yeah. And, you know, based on my last experience in the primary with the bidens in that 2019, the doldrums of 19 and then into those first couple of months, look, I think on Ms. Now and sort of the progressive podcast echo chamber space, I think that the left makes all the noise. They are certainly louder at making the noise. That's not really where voters in a Democratic primary nationally were in 2020. They were not. You know, the media, the mainstream media was more obsessed with Bernie and Warren and even Buttigieg to an extent. I mean, Warren, Elizabeth Warren, got third in her home state of Massachusetts. Bernie really ran for president twice now and couldn't make the case himself for president to Democratic voters in a national competitive primary. So it just feels to me, based on voting behavior across the country in these primaries and the way Democrats set them up, that the silent majority of actual Democratic primary voters really aren't all that interested in what the left is offering. That just hasn't been the case so far. Who knows maybe that changes in 2024. It just hasn't been the case yet. So I'm interested to see if that happens. I don't think it will. I also think as you mentioned, we got to figure out and we'll know in a couple of weeks where we are in Michigan where this platinum earth Mamdani experiment goes in Maine. And we'll certainly see how the Mamdani experiment goes in Maine by November. I think at that point we're going to have a better idea on how that wing of the party is going to fare.
- [62:51]
B
What do you think? This is a little bit of a data.
- [62:53]
A
Sorry, Michael. Quick, quick on a quick, quick data thing. Actually, according to our friends over at Cal State, our sponsors at Cal State, Bladder is still favored by 57% of the people who are who are in that market. He's down a little bit. Collins.
- [63:06]
E
And by the way, I bet that doesn't change and I think that's the, the uniqueness of Maine. Keep, keep in mind Maine is the oldest state in the country by medium age. You know, it was really funny hearing a incredible, you know, sort of legacy mainstream reporter who was telling me he was up there talking to this,
- [63:30]
C
a
- [63:31]
E
Democratic voter, more of a Bernie Bro kind of grandma as she called herself, loves Bernie. But not an election that goes by where she will not vote for Susan Collins. She is Susan Collins all the way. That woman could do no wrong. And that sort of explains the gap. The Biden Collins voter, 9 points in 2020 that was impossible to poll accurately. So I have no doubt that that the polls and the prediction markets will have Platner and the energy and money will be around him for the next couple of months. But the Collins people are smart. They've done this before and they've been underestimated before. And on election day they had their race. 43, 42. Collins and the rest of the country and the rest of the Democratic Party did not. So they know how to do this up there and she can afford to be outspent 3 to 1 and still win by 10 points apparently.
- [64:38]
B
Michael, before I let you go, just one last question. To what degree does woke still matter and is it an albatross for the libs? We're years past peak woke and the Dems are trying to run away from it, it seems. But we are constantly hanging these clips calling God non binary or to referring to women as our neighbors with uteruses all around James Talarico. And it's hard for him to run away from it. Ben did a Great job. When he went on Gavin Newsom show of just constantly pinning Newsom back on the trans issue, there was like a Newsom shaped hole in the wall. He wanted to get as far away from it as he could. To what degree do you think that's still a live issue going into the midterms?
- [65:18]
E
It's very much a live issue and it's very much a live issue. I'm actually surprised that Republicans aren't maybe and maybe they will maybe as we start moving into more TV ad season when all these primaries are set and done, that is the biggest vulnerability in my view for Democrats because they don't. There is no, you'll, you will hear lockstep talking points and unity on messaging around the economy. You will, you will. You have no idea what you're going to get when you ask a Democrat office holder candidate about trans issues. There is, it is the most vulnerable issue because they just don't know how to answer it. And it's shocking to me. I mean I'm a former NCAA swimmer. There's no way in hell I can tell you that Democrat or that biological men should be competing in women's sports. I can just say that. And 90% of, and the vast majority, and I think the vast, the silent majority of Democrats, probably Democratic voters feel that way. But these my, my Democratic, you know, Democrats who I admire a lot in, for their abilities and their talents in Congress just tie themselves in knots trying to find a way to answer that question. And it's so easy. And you'll hear people like a Jason Crow who will probably is very ambitious and very talented and skilled at communicating. He'll say, you know, well this, this is so infrequent. This is such a small part of, you know, society. Well, if it's such a, if it's so infrequent and it's so small, the portion of people who actually do compete or trans who compete in sports. Why can't you just say you're very.
- [67:08]
B
That's right. I'm not a former NCAA anything and I find it very easy to say that too. Michael, wonderful to see you. Thank you very much for coming on. Everybody go follow Michael LaRosa then. Before we go, fellas, can we talk about the daddies a little bit? Can we get a little daddy talking?
- [67:23]
C
I know, I know. We have got to stop talking about no problem anytime like the economy and Iran and stuff like that and really talk about something, really talk about something important because there are a lot of people who are going to be in trouble pretty soon. And I think we ought to give them a hand.
- [67:40]
A
Absolutely. It is Father's Day. Father's Day. It's coming.
- [67:43]
C
Father's Day.
- [67:44]
A
I know this is not an awkward ad read at all. Father's Day is just a few days away. I feel like many of you still have not gotten your dad a gift. And this is not self serving at all. But we have ideas.
- [67:55]
B
No, but you know what I'm here to do. I'm here to read what's written in my prompter which says that you haven't gotten your dad a gift. And so I know people are gonna say, oh, finding a good gift for dad, it's so hard. I have no idea what he wants. It's not hard. Men are simple creatures, okay? We're easy. We wanna be informed. We wanna be right. We wanna be left alone and enjoy both. And we. I know. I'm using we. I should have used they. They actually wrote they in the prompter. I changed it and that's on me. The copywriters did a better job than I did. We can help you with all those things.
- [68:30]
A
It's true. So here's the actual pitch. Daily Wire plus is 45% off right now for both annual memberships and also gift memberships. It is a full year of all of our daily shows, the hit documentaries, the exclusive entertainment you want. There's a lot to enjoy right now and there is tons more coming. So now would be a perfect chance to buy for your dad.
- [68:48]
C
Trust us. Look at this face. Can you not trust this face? This is something your dad will like and get value out of, unlike whatever you were going to buy him, which sucked a few days left. So stop stalling. Go to DailyWirePlus.com, use code DAD45 at checkout.
- [69:08]
B
And you know what you gotta do also, once you do that and you sign up dad 45, you've gotta go. Subscribe to Matt Nuclear. Because regardless, I know there's a variety of opinion on the MoU whether or not we're even gonna get a final deal, but Matt is a nuclear deal. We can all agree on. Head on over. Subscribe to Matt Nuclear right now and if you have time, keep subscribing to our show. This is friendly fire. We'll see you next time.
- [69:34]
A
The world has chosen
- [69:37]
B
the nuclear reaction.