Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 196 | Should Porn Be Banned?

Episode Date: December 11, 2019

Today I discuss the dangerous effects of pornography, the Left's failing attempts to impeach President Trump, a new abortion law in Kentucky, and other latest news stories. Today's Sponsor: If you��re thinking of replacing your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you must first try Genesis 950. Genesis 950 is green and safe to use around your family and pets. Genesis 950 is offering a free spray bottle at checkout, with discount code: BLAZE https://genesis950.com

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, guys, welcome to relatable. Happy Wednesday. Today is Newsday. So we really have no other option than to talk about at least a little bit about some of the impeachment stuff that has been going on this week. I mean, it's absolutely insane. I'm not going to stay forever on that topic. because there are also a lot of other things that I would like to touch on. Today I'm going to talk about the Peloton commercial. You guys have been asking my thoughts on that. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you will.

I will get into it. I am also going to touch on a few other news items that I think are important, like the law in Kentucky that is making informed consent, a part of the appointments that doctors have with women who are seeking an abortion, so showing them in only. ultrasound image and why the Democrats are having a connoption over that. We're going to talk about a couple other things too. Hey, this is Steve Day.

If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's

unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Let's get into some of this impeachment stuff. So guys, guys, guys, if you have been trying to avoid this stuff, I do not blame you. We talked about it a couple weeks ago. I tried to give you a rundown of what's happening, all the stuff with Ukraine and quid pro quo and somehow it still connects to the Russia investigation, which was discredited yet went on and on and on. We are back here. If you haven't noticed since Donald

Trump became president, they have been trying to delegitimize his presidency saying that he is not, he's not valid. He is not a real president that he somehow stole this election away from the rightful winner of Hillary Clinton. Of course, we know that all of their attempts have failed, But yesterday they finally said, okay, we are going to file two articles of impeachment. The first article of impeachment was abuse of power. The second, they say, obstruction of Congress. So here's what the Constitution says about impeachment in its impeachment clause. The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes.

and misdemeanor. So the Democrats in the House are claiming that Trump's actions fall under high crimes and misdemeanors, even though they were claiming, they have been claiming during all of these impeachment hearings, which maybe you haven't caught any of them. I've tried to watch them. They have been extremely boring, extremely boring. And I want to keep up with it because I want to be able to relay this information and analyze it for you guys. But guys, I would rather pick out every single one of my eyelashes before I sit there and watch another second of these impeachment hearings. They are so boring and I'm sure I'm sure you guys feel the same way. But if you've been paying attention just a little bit, you will have known that the Democrats have been saying the quid pro quo

that they called it the conversation that he had with Ukraine saying, hey, you should investigate into Joe Biden. There's some sketchy stuff that went on with his son and Burisma and all of this stuff. They're saying that was quid pro quo. That was. was bribery. While the transcript came out, there clearly wasn't a quid pro quo. And the president of Ukraine said, no, there wasn't any kind of pressure to investigate Joe Biden. They still said, okay, this is bribery. Well, now they've changed the accusation of President Trump from bribery to high crimes and misdemeanors, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler alleged that Trump pressured Ukraine to meddle in our 2020 election.

which, as I've already said, is not true. Trump telling Ukraine, hey, you should look into Biden, is an invitation to meddle into our election because Biden is not the nominee. He's not the nominee. He might be the frontrunner, but he's not the nominee. Right now Trump is not running against Biden. We don't know if Biden is going to be the nominee. There is no evidence that an investigation right now into Biden would interfere into our election at all.

Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren could very well. be the nominee. This is this kind of the accusation then is a sham because we don't actually know if Biden is going to be running against Trump. If you want more information on this, you can go back a couple of weeks where I did a whole episode or at least a good bit of an episode on this. I remember Biden while he was vice president actually did threaten to withhold aid from Ukraine if they didn't investigate the prosecutor who was investigating the company that

his son was on the board of. Yes, that actually happened. and is, yes, sketchy. But when you bring these things up, Democrats say that, oh, this is just a conspiracy theory. This is a red herring. And you actually notice that this is something that Democrats do on a lot. If you bring up a fact that is contrary to a narrative that they have presented, that they will just say, oh, that's misinformation. Oh, you're spreading lies. Oh, that's not true. That's deceptive. That's dangerous. Whatever. But they won't actually correct the record. So they'll say that something that you're saying is a.

conspiracy, but they won't tell you what's actually true, and that certainly has been the case on this. You can read all of the articles in the world on this impeachment stuff. What you will find underneath it is that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump his entire presidency. They have not for a second. Like we already noted, been able to accept the legitimacy of the 2016 election. They are already trying to undermine the 2020 election. So they're all right. already gearing up the narrative for that by saying that he is already trying to interfere into the 2020 election. They do this a lot. They still say that Stacey Abrams is the rightful governor of Georgia, even though she lost to Brian Kemp by 50,000 votes. They didn't want to

accept that Ron DeSantis beat Andrew Gillum in Florida. They wouldn't accept George Bush that he beat Al Gore all the way back in 2000 within that controversy. Democrats claim that whenever they lose, it is because it is unfair. It is because it is unjust. It is like when a toddler is learning how to compete and they try to, we try to teach them how to accept defeat graciously and they're unable to do that. They claim that the person who beat them in a video game or whatever cheated. It's the same way many times with Democrats. I'm not saying Republicans are never guilty of this.

But as we've seen, especially recently in the past few years, this is Democrats' mode of operation. Whenever they lose, it is because the system is rigged or it is. unfair because there is foul play. That is why Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats like AOC and so on have said that they want to abolish the electoral college and other liberals have even suggested abolishing the Senate because Democrats cannot appeal to the middle of the country. They cannot accept that the middle of the country, that people not just in the middle of the country, but everywhere, actually support Donald Trump voted for Donald Trump like his policies.

They don't want to conform to the will of the people. They instead, want the will of the people to conform to them. They would like New York and L.A. to and D.C. to control flyover country. And again, we're not just talking about impeachment. We're talking about the election in general. We're talking about our structures in this republic. You want to know why that's a bad idea to abolish the electoral college, to subvert the will of the people, to abolish the Senate. I'll give you one tweet by this leftist commentator. This was actually the beginning of November, and it was hilarious. It was on Twitter.

He tweeted, this is land by the Colorado, Kansas border from a plane. Pretty cool. I have no idea how slash why it looks like this. I don't know if I talked about this, actually, a couple months ago on the podcast. But with that tweet,

he posted a picture from the plane where you can see that the land looks like a, it looks like a collage of different squares, all put together, different colored squares. And obviously, obviously, these are farms. Obviously, these are farms.

Now, this is just deductive reasoning. You would think, okay, where am I? Okay, I know that this is farmland. I can tell that this maybe looks like a crop. Most people in major cities, though, have no idea. This guy got horrifically ratio just by his wonder and amazement that there are farms and crops that look different than New York does. This guy got totally dragged through the mud. I think he had a pretty good attitude about it, actually. So, to his credit. But most people in major cities have that. exactly no idea what goes on in the rest of the country. They are continually astonished that people live in a different way they do, have different priorities than they do, think differently, believe different things than they do. And instead of just accepting, okay, those people come

from different backgrounds, they have different experiences that shape their beliefs. They automatically think anyone who believes more conservatively than they do or who has more traditional values, that they are bigoted, that they are backwards, that they are antiquated, that they are just rooted and stuck in their hate, and if they were just more metropolitan, if they were just around more smuts as they are in New York City, then maybe possibly they would have more progressive and better and more loving and more tolerant views. That's what most people in these coastal cities in New York, in D.C. and San Francisco and L.A., that's what they think about the rest of the country, that they are just these backwards hillbillies. That's why it's a bad idea to abolish the

electoral college, not because I want the middle of the country to have preferential treatment, but because I want them to have fair treatment. I want them to have fair representation. I want them to have representative leadership. That's why we live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. You constantly hear Democrats nowadays talking about democracy, democracy, trying to make it seem like they are on the side of freedom. What they're talking about is the tyranny of the majority where the tiny, tiny sliver of majority controls the rest of the country. So New York and L.A. and D.C. and San Francisco, I know I went coast to coast, coast, coast to coast, they're controlling the rest of the country, no matter where you live. The system

that we have now, the representative democracy that we have now, makes sure that the less populous states, typically in the middle of the country, typically rural states, have a say. The Democrats don't want that. They say they want a direct democracy. Our country is not a direct democracy. And there is a reason for that. That's part of the genius of the foundings. of the founding. But the far left Democrats, they don't want to be bothered with those kinds of people. They don't want to be bothered with people like you and me. They don't want to try to convince us. They certainly don't want to try to debate us. They don't want to try to hold any kind of hearing for our views or have any kind of productive conversation or dialogue. We've certainly seen that in the past

few years. And this whole impeachment sham shows the utter disdain that many Democrats, not all that many Democrats have for people who voted for Donald Trump and particularly for people in the middle of the country, people who don't have the same views that they do. They hate the president so much that they are willing to subvert the will of the people who voted for him. And look, if there were something here, if there were something here, I would be for impeachment. And I am willing to hear the other side of this. I am willing. If you've got a good case to make for impeachment, email me, message me. Like, I am totally willing to hear it. I would like to be on the side of truth, not just on the side of partisanship, but I just haven't heard it. It seems

all flimsy. And after watching how hard they have tried for the past few years to take this president down based on basically nothing, it's just hard for me to believe. It's like the boy who cried wolf. This is obviously out of fear that Donald Trump is going to win in 2020. They know that he is not actually going to be removed, though. There will be a Senate try to Senate is controlled by Republicans. And so again, you can be impeached without actually being removed. They will be able to say that Trump was impeached, though. I think that's probably their strategy. I talked about this in my conversation with Andrew Claven on Friday, that this is probably a PR strategy that if they can just label him as an impeached president, they will get enough people to say,

oh, I don't want to vote for the guy who was impeached. And I know there are a lot of people, particularly a lot of probably suburban moms, a lot of young people who aren't paying attention to this. And the only reason I say that is because you have a lot of other things going on if you are a mom of three young kids. If you are a young person who is in school, I would say people who are, there are a lot of people who go to work and have the news on in the background or they're reading some kind of aggregative news in the morning. But I would say for a lot of, moms who feel like they don't have time to pay attention to the stuff or who don't care about this stuff. A lot of kids in college, they're not paying attention to the impeachment hearings.

They might not even know they're going on. And yet in a few months when they're thinking about, okay, who am I going to vote for in this election? They just know, okay, this guy was impeached. And at that point, the facts get so muddled, the longer it is. I think that Democrats believe that having the label of impeachment on him will be enough to deter the people who aren't paying attention to what's going on right now to not vote for him. The people in the middle, they're just going to say, you know, I don't want to vote for an impeached president. He must be corrupt, right?

I think that is their goal to just draw a conclusion and hope people will draw their own conclusions based on this conclusion, which is not based on any actual logical argument or a fact. Democrats are always depending on deception in order to make their point. I won't say Democrats. I would say the left is always depending on deception.

and manipulation to make their point. As Dennis Prager says, truth is not a left-wing value. Narrative is a left-wing value, and they are very good and very effective at pushing a narrative. Facts be darned. This is the Democratic strategy.

Okay, that's all I have to say on that. You've got the IG report. You've got James Comey claiming that he was supposed to go on Fox and Friends, and Fox and Friends canceled him. Fox and Friends said, no, that actually wasn't true. He was never books or confirmed for Fox and Friends. which I believe I was really surprised any way that James Comey would be going on Fox and Friends in the first place.

And then a lot of other Fox hosts like Bear and Martha McCallum said, hey, you can come on our show and talk about the IG report. Like, we're more than happy to have you. James Comey tried to pretend like Fox News was so scared to talk to him about the IG report. The IG report doesn't look good for the FBI. I can tell you that much the IG report examined how the Russian investigation originally started. and whether it was legitimate or biased or whether there were mistakes made. And basically the conclusion was that they couldn't prove any kind of bias against President

Trump, but that there was a lot of sloppiness in the startup of the investigation, especially under James Comey. So if you want more details on that, there are lots of resources. You can go to the blaze.com. They have plenty of resources on the IG report and everything that kind of went wrong there. I want to move along though because I promised you guys that we wouldn't spend the entire episode on that. And quite frankly, there are so many details, so many details to get into that it would just take too long and I don't want to bore you guys. Like I said, this impeachment stuff is really boring. I think we're just going to move past it.

And it's more going to have the, my prediction, it's more going to have the Kavanaugh effect that people are galvanized by this in the way that Democrats don't want, that people are incensed. People are like, really, you are going to spend our taxpayer. on this dragging this man through the mud impeaching him for something that isn't really impeachable. I think that's the effect that it's going to have. I think it's going to backfire on the Democrats. Okay, I want to tell you a bit of good news. I know we talk about abortion so much, but it's so important, and it's not every day that we get good news about it. So Kentucky passed or, okay, let me read you from liveaction.com because it'll have the most accurate language. The Kentucky law requires the Kentucky law that we're talking about requires that women have an ultrasound before undergoing an

abortion. The doctor must describe the ultrasound and offer the women the chance to hear the audio of the heartbeat. She is not required to see the images or listen. But as live action investigation found, women are not typically given the truth by abortion staffers about fetal development. Of course not. Of course they're not. They call it pregnancy tissue and things like that. Because if women were given accurate information, there would be a greater chance that they might change their mind and leave. and that tells you everything you need to know about the abortion industry. Again, they operate on deceit. The Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to Kentucky's informed consent requirements, therefore upholding the law and signifying another win for the pro-life movement.

Previously, a federal appeals court appelled the law, only to have the decision appealed by the ACLU. The ultrasound informed consent act was passed in 2017. It was originally overturned by a lower court after the ACLU challenged it. However, after a challenge from the state, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals appelled the ruling, rejecting the idea that the law challenged doctors' free speech rights. Of course not. It is just a part of the process now that you have an ultrasound. The doctor has to use the ultrasound anyway, because before an abortion, the doctor needs to see how far along you are to know what kind of abortion the doctor is going to have to perform to kill the baby. So now the only difference is they are offering this woman the opportunity to hear the heartbeat, which exists.

It is a tangible thing that is really there, and to see the baby. So it's just more information. That's all this law requires is that this woman is given as much information as humanly possible before she makes a big decision that will affect her whether she, believes it or not, whether the pro-choice side wants you to believe it or not, for the rest of her life. And it tells you something about the pro-abortion side that they are against informed consent, that they are against the woman knowing what is actually going on inside her body. If you are really about pro-choice, like if you were really about a woman making the best decision

for her, you would want her to have all of the options possible. You would want her to have all of the information possible, right? But unfortunately, they're against that because, again, they are pro-abortion. That's why we say pro-abortion and not pro-choice. So let's move on from that. There is a great porn debate going on. Not a great porn debate as in like it's great. It is substantial. It is not necessarily a fun debate because it's kind of a sad debate, the different side that we, the different sides that we see going on. But there is a major porn debate that is going on online and it started from four Republican representatives. This is according to National Review. Four Republican representatives have sent a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr this morning calling on

the Department of Justice to enforce obscenity laws as a means of reducing hardcore pornography that meets the legal task for obscenity, especially pornography involving children. No brainer. Duh, of course. This is for the best. interest of the country. The letter signed by Jim Banks of Indiana, Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Vicki Hartsler of Missouri, and Brian Babin of Texas was provided exclusively to National Review and reminds the Justice Department of Donald Trump's promise as a presidential candidate to enforce obscenity laws against the porn industry. The internet, this is, the representatives write this in their letter to Bill Barr. The internet in other evolving technologies are fueling the explosion

of obscene pornography by making it more excessive. and visceral. This explosion in pornography coincides with an increase in violence towards women and an increase in the volume of human trafficking as well as child pornography. This is absolutely right. Representative Bank said this in a comment to the National Review. As online obscenity and pornography consumption have increased, so too as violence towards women. Overall volume of human trafficking has increased and is now the third largest criminal enterprise in the world. Child pornography is on the rise as one of the fastest growing online businesses with an annual revenue of over $3 billion.

The United States has nearly 50% of all commercialized child pornography websites. Let me save that again. The United States has nearly 50% of all commercialized child pornography websites. Pornography is ubiquitous in our culture and our children are being exposed to younger ages. Nine in every 10 boys under the age of 18 have seen porn. Children, and I think the number, he doesn't include this, but I think the number is six and every 10 girls under the age of 18 of seen born children are struggling with pornography addiction. Under President Obama's administration, the National

Review goes on to say under President Obama's administration, Attorney General Eric Holder disbanded the obscenity prosecution task force in the criminal division of the Justice Department, which had prioritized prosecuting obscenity cases. Eric Holder disbanded the obscenity prosecution task force in the criminal division of the Justice Department. So that tells you something that you need to know. Fight the New Drug.org. It's a nonpartisan, non-religious organization. You will see the research on how pornography is intertwined with sex trafficking,

with child exploitation, with abuse, with rape, with coercion. It also coincides with violent mentalities and young boys, especially towards women. I mean, for the side that constantly talks about the problem with rape and misogyny, which, by the way, we should all be talking about that no matter which side you're on, but especially the left with the Me Too and the time's up movement. Parts of it I agree with, parts of it I don't necessarily agree with, by the way. But for the side that is acting so concerned about that, they are amazingly pro pornography. You are going to be hard pressed to find someone on the left who is against pornography or is who, who, who, who is even for a regulating pornography. I mean, they love regulations on everything except for on abortion and pornography. So that tells you where their priorities are. It is, like I said, mostly leftists that are fighting for the normalization for even the glorification of pornography because just like their views on abortion, on sexuality, on gender, all of those things indicate most people on the left do not view human beings as made in the image of God and having

inherent value in and of themselves. So the only thing that they think matters is autonomy, is making a choice. So if someone is making a choice, then any other kind of morality doesn't actually count. What they don't account for is the fact that a lot of people who are involved in pornography, unfortunately, do not have, do not have a choice. But either way, whether it's someone's choice or not, it is still immoral. It is the objectification of image bears, and it is decontextualizing sex from its intended purpose within marriage to something that it should not be strictly for gratification in a way that is not healthy gratification, but it actually leads to psychological problems and the people that watch it and the people that are performing in it. But there are also conservatives. There are also conservatives who have a problem with any kind of regulation of porn as well. If you go to Matt Walsh's page, he was in a conversation with a few different people about this. and, I mean, the angry, angry, angry Twitter warriors who claim to be conservatives, who I guess are conservatives in their views, getting so worked up and mad at Matt Walsh for saying

that there should be censorship, there should be regulation of pornography, they say free speech, they say small government, but here's the thing. Conservatives don't just believe in small government. Yes, we do believe in limited government. That is a value that we have, but we don't believe in no government involvement at all. We believe that we are only as good. Most conservatives believe this. We are only as good as the structures that we uphold. So we believe in things like preserving the family and protecting children from obscenity and exploitation. Yes, it is ultimately the responsibility of parents to protect their children. Absolutely. I am in no way saying that that is the state's primary obligation or responsibility. Yes, it is

absolutely up to parents. But when we're talking about not just children being able to access pornography so easily, whether it's on their phone or their tablet or YouTube, I mean, this happens when kids are watching something on YouTube, something automatically pops up without the parent knowing it. And bam, they're five years old and they've already been subjected to pornography. Unfortunately, that happens. And yes, parents can use all the parental controls in the world and something like that could still happen. So that's one side of it. But the other side of it is that the children that are involved. And yes, people say, oh, well, that's already illegal. Child pornography is already illegal. But the commercialization of pornography aids child pornography.

Of course it does. Now, there are people who say that while regulating it or banning porn is just going to lead to some kind of black market for it. It's going to make it so much more dangerous for the people who are involved. You're guarantee that there are going to be more children exploited. You're guaranteed that there's going to be more sex trafficking involved with the black market porn industry. But, okay, that is the argument for everything. Conservatives who are making this argument, that's the argument for everything. You can make that argument about abortion.

You could make that argument about assisted suicide. You could make that argument about everything. So basically, if you go down that trail of reasoning, are you saying that there really should be no laws because regulating something or banning something just makes it more dangerous for everyone involved. Yes, that's true about some things. Of course, we believe that's true about guns, that banning guns actually isn't going to help. People are still going to find a way to kill people. People are still going to find a way to buy guns. But we have a constitutional right to own guns. We don't have the constitutional right to watch porn or to have porn be so ubiquitous

in our society, it doesn't make sense for obscene pornography, which all pornography really is obscene. But they're talking about hardcore pornography, whatever that means. It doesn't make any sense for that to fall under the First Amendment's protection of free speech. And in fact, it was never intended to. Conservatives, yes, believe in limited government. We don't believe in anarchy. We do believe that there is a reason for the government, that there is a reason for laws that there is a reason sometimes for regulation. And yes, does it start with the heart? Absolutely. Does it start with the individual? Does it start with families and communities and societies? Yes, we simply believe the government should do the job that they, the best job that they possibly

can to uphold the structures that make it possible for us to protect our children as much as possible because we do believe that that is our responsibility. Now, of course, the other argument is, or it's really in all of this is, okay, but this is, there's always going to be a supply of pornography as long as there is a demand for pornography. That's the same argument that the pro-abortion side says that you're just, you know, forcing women to have abortions at home or in back alleys or whatever. Yes, that is true, which is why we as Christians have a responsibility, have a responsibility to see all of these things as primarily a heart issue, as primarily a spiritual issue. That's why it is so important for us to share the gospel first and foremost in our homes with our

children, with the people that we know, to be the body of Christ, to share Christ to those around us because he is the only one who can regenerate. He is the only one that can renew. He's the only one that can make new that can redeem. He is the only one that changes the heart of stone to a heart of flesh. He is the only one that can fully and finally change someone's desires from desire in something like the objectification of pornography to desiring something that is pure, a life that is pure to see things that are pure and right and good and true. He is the only one that can change those things. So we know, we understand it is a spiritual responsibility that doesn't mean that legislation has no role in this at all. It is always balanced between balancing

personal freedom with the public good. And we tend to go on the as conservatives of personal freedom, absolutely, but we are always, we're always going to be weighing those things. And if you have an argument for me that you can tell me that absolute accessibility to hardcore porn is better for children, is better for teens, and is better for family, I'm willing to hear it because I want to do the thing. If it's deregulation that truly helps children and adolescents and people's minds who are being fried by pornography of deregulation is truly the answer is truly better for those people, then I want to hear your argument. And I'm willing to hear it. I truly am. So please let me know if you believe

the absolute accessibility is better for children and better for society than banning or regulating porn. I'm interested in hearing that. Okay. That's the debate that we're having on porn. And a lot of you have asked me to do a whole episode on porn. Sure. There's a lot of, I think that'd probably be better for an interview. There are people. who have been studying pornography and the detrimental effects of pornography on our society for decades, who would probably be a better resource for me. So I will try to, maybe I can get someone from fight the new drug to talk about, to talk about all of that because it absolutely affects all of, all of society. There's really no society, part of society that is not

touched unfortunately by the damages of pornography. Okay, I want to show you, okay, I'm going to show you a couple of videos and then I'm going to talk about the Peloton commercial and then I have one update of one of my friends, Pastor Tom Ascal, who needs our prayers. Okay, I want to show you this quick video from Cabot Phillips from campus reform and he is asking students what they think about Medicare for All. So the main issue that Democrats have taken up and running against President Trump on is health care. The policy right now they're proposing is Medicare for All, which is, you know, the idea of government-funded health care for everyone. Is that a concept? you view favorably or unfavorably? Favorably for sure. I do support Medicare for all. I do. I do

think that every American deserves health care. I do support that. I think it's an important form of universal health care. I do support free health care for everybody. So the second part, it would eliminate private health insurance, the entire industry. It would be just under a million jobs would be eliminated because all insurance moved to the government. Unfavorably. Unfavorably. What's your take on that? It does concern me. I think having jobs and being able to make a living and survive on your own and take care of your family is more important than everybody having health care. I think that like the way someone wants to ensure their life and their health is their choice. In the Bernie Sanders proposal would be about $32 trillion over the next decade. That would be every American paying about one-fifth of their income towards funding it. Is that a concern?

Yes. pay for it? Yes, so taxes will go up. You still have to pay for it? I don't support that. I mean, I'm not paying for taxes currently, so that kind of I can say favorable, I guess, but if I were financially on my own, I'd probably say unfavorable. Is that too much money, do you think? And would that change your support of it? No comment. I'm going to take that as that you don't like that. No comment. That's incredible. That's incredible. I love these kind of videos, and Cabot really is, he's the best. He's the best at these kind of videos.

I think that people like to, I think that he is unintimitating. And so people are comfortable around Cabot answering questions. And he just does a really good job of kind of leveling with people, not making them feel stupid, not condescending them, but giving the answer that he wants to get. And it's so true of so many young people that they like the sound of policies that seem compassionate.

But when they realize that every leftist policy involves coercion. and involves the limitation of freedom, which is also a value that young people have, they start to backtrack a little bit, which is why it's so important for us to point that out and to highlight the limitations on freedom that leftist policies have because all of these people say they're, you know, they're pro-choice, they're against, they're against the, they're against the, they're against authoritarianism, all of that. And so when you tell them, well, these leftist policies like Medicare for all, they actually, they limit your choice then it makes them start thinking differently.

And this is true, like I've already said, of like every leftist policy out there, at least right now. Yes, everyone's pro-choice until they actually know what an abortion is. Everyone is on the same page for Medicare for All. Everyone is on board for Medicare for All until they find out what Medicare for all actually is. Everyone's on board for socialism until they find out what socialism actually is, which is why the left censor speech, which is why they just gaslight you and say, well, you're just spreading misinformation. That's not true. When you point out facts about these things, they do not want you to actually know what socialism or Medicare for all or abortion or any of

these things actually entail. They don't want you to pick apart their details. They don't want you to inconvenience them with facts. They want to hide under euphemisms as much as they possibly can because that's how they win. That's their effective PR strategy. And that's why I say conservatives have a much easier job in a way because all we have to do is remember what's true. It's much harder to remember a lie. But it's also harder because you're fighting against misinformation and euphemisms all of the time and people who are constantly gaslighting you, telling you that you're not telling the truth. Okay, that's one video. The next video is this sweet video of President Trump. It's so sweet. I'll show you. So this was the American Israeli Council. I think

that's what it is, or Israeli-American Council. And this was a group from Israel. All of these kids have different special needs. And he's just so comfortable with him. I have spent a lot of time around people with special needs. And I can tell you that even very good people, very, and by that, I mean, you know, they're compassionate people, they're nice people, they're kind people. They, most people feel very awkward around people with special needs. They don't know what to do with their hands. They don't know how to talk to them. They don't know the tone of voice to use. They don't know what to say to them. They don't want to sound patronizing. They don't want to, you know, say their wrong thing. And so most people are just very standoffish or they start talking to

people with special needs like babies. And I can tell you, neither one of those options is good. And to see President Trump just so comfortable, so comfortable in this kind of situation, it's heartwarming. I don't care who you are. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on. you might have problems with President Trump, that is fine. This was sweet. Let's just accept the purity of this moment of President Trump being so welcoming and so kind and so warm towards these people who clearly admire him and who maybe haven't seen this kind of acceptance from very many people throughout their lives. I mean, to get a hug by the President of the United States like this. That is so natural. I love it. I love to see it. President Trump's

campaign, if any of you connected to President Trump are listening to me, this is the Donald Trump that we need to see more of, more of this. Now, I am not advocating for exploiting people with special needs for political gains. I'm just saying we need to highlight Trump's compassion, highlight the fact that he has a big heart, highlight the fact that he cares about people. Because, you know, I know the guy says a lot of things, but I actually truly do think that he is an empathetic and compassionate person. I really do. I really do. I do, I do not buy that he is some virulent racist that doesn't care about. doesn't care about people based on the color of their skin or their socioeconomic status.

I just don't buy that. He's worked with too many different kinds of people throughout his life. You can have lots of problems with Donald Trump, but I'm just not buying that line of freezing, not based on this one video, but just based in general. So present, based on facts in general, President Trump and his campaign, this is what we need to see more of. This is what moms, the suburban moms that you are at risk of losing. This is what they want to see. They want to see that you are compassionate. want to see that you have a soft heart. They want to see that you are warm-hearted, that you are

generous, that you can be this kind, caring guy because they might not like everything they see at the rallies or on Twitter, which I understand. That's part of your persona that might be important for a part of your base. But there are other people over here that want to like you, want to support you, but they need to see some kind of morality, what they view as morality from you. They want to see some kind of compassion. So we need more of that. Last thing. Peloton commercial.

So if you haven't seen the Peloton commercial, I don't really want to play it because it's a couple minutes long. So it's basically this woman who was gifted a Peloton bike by her husband last Christmas. And it's an actress portraying this. And, you know, poor thing. This is maybe her big break. She was excited about this Peloton commercial. It just wasn't a very well done commercial. And I think I might have talked about this a little bit.

on the podcast a couple days ago. But anyway, so she decides that her gift for her husband the next year is going to be a compilation of selfie videos that she took of herself riding her bike for the past year and showing it to her husband at the next Christmas. This was supposed to be inspiring. It was not inspiring at all. Again, nothing against this actress and maybe nothing against the constant. concept itself, but there were so many problems with it. First of all, she was already thin,

which that's totally fine, but you don't see any progress. You don't see any backstory. It's not like we know that she has some chronic illness or that she has some disease that she's overcoming her. She has some fear or anxiety that she's overcoming in her year-long journey. It's literally just a woman who looks extremely fit and who looks extremely fit at the end of the year, too, showing her husband the video that she made on Eye movie. Like that's not a good concept. That's not interesting marketing. I have long said that Peloton needs to do better when it comes to their advertising. Like there's so much that they can do. I read something that they realized in 2017 or 2018 that they would be able to not just get the people who are extremely wealthy

living in metropolitan areas, but they also would be able to attract people who are willing to splurge on something like a Peloton who aren't spending a whole lot of money. I think that's absolutely true. If you want to reach those people, you can't just be showing the people who clearly live in a million dollar house and are already skinny. Like the people who are buying a Peloton, if they are splurging on it and they're investing in it, they are likely doing that in lieu of a gym membership because I would say either for convenience, which is a big reason, but also because they might be intimidated by a gym. Gyms are extremely intimidating or they don't want to do a video, you know, with some kind of circuit, they don't want to run.

And so they decided I'm going to do a peloton. They've got top-notch teachers. They don't have to go anywhere. I don't have to be embarrassed. Cycling is really easy. It's low impact. It's really good for people who are out of shape to start with cycling. So you've got a lot of people who are not in shape, who might even have joint issues,

who are intimidated by a gym. If you want to reach those people, don't show me someone who's going from skinny to skinny who doesn't have any problems besides the fact that she was kind of nervous to ride on her stationary bike. Like it just doesn't make any sense. What you need to do is you need to show a variety of people. You need to show the woman who is, uh, maybe she's postpartum and she's trying to get back into shape. You need to show the person who maybe they have some kind of chronic illness or chronic disease that they're trying to get over. You need to show all different walks of life. You need to show the person who's getting up at 4 a.m. to write their peloton. The person who is coming home from work and they're writing their

peloton coming home at lunch maybe they have a night shift and they're writing their peloton at 8 p.m. What you need to show is that you can peloton anywhere, that you or you can't peloton anywhere. You can only peloton at home, but you can peloton no matter what your stage of life is, no matter what you're going through, no matter what your fitness level is, no matter what your goals are, no matter what time of day, no matter what you're wearing, no matter where you have to go next, because Peloton has 10 minute rides, 15 minute rides, 30 minute rides, 50 an hour and a half, all different kinds of levels. Some are just fun. Some are really intense. Some are like professional cycling. And so I think that's the appeal. Like you don't know any of that by watching a

Peloton commercial. All you think is, oh, this is for rich skinny people. And if you're trying to appeal to everyone else, people who are splurging and saving up for the Peloton rather than people who just have $5,000 to blow, then you need to show that, hey, Peloton's for everyone. Like, have a more real commercial. I'm sure if you wanted to show someone's evolution over a year of writing Peloton, you could have probably found someone who has a real story.

Like, why not just show before and after pictures? Why not interview someone who was like, yeah, I started out. I had never worked out before. I was just wanting to feel stronger. I was wanting to feel more. in shape. I got, you know, a bad diagnosis from my doctor about my heart or whatever. He encouraged me to try the Peloton and I didn't know if I could financially swing it, but I'm so

glad that I invested in this because it's paying off, you know, for the rest of my life. Why not show that? This poor marketing company, they're having a hard time. Peloton came out and said, you know, we're revisiting our marketing strategy considering how often our Peloton ads are parodied. Well, the marketing company isn't doing its job. with this ad. Like, be real. Be real. If there aren't, this makes me think there aren't any stories about Peloton users' lives being changed. And I think that there are. I think that there probably are. I think the Peloton is probably a great bike. And I think the teachers are awesome and really fun. I think it's probably a very effective exercise. But the advertising is terrible.

And someone, the reason I'm talking about this is because this was talked about on Tucker Carlson show when someone sent me it and was like, why aren't you talking about this? Because I went on this Twitter tirade about this, how I have been saying what Peloton should do for their advertising for a long time. And I was tweeting about my different ideas. And I've said, you know what? This is for free. And everyone was like, why are you giving your Peloton ad ideas away for free? Because I'm not in this business. I'm not in this business. Now that I'm talking about this, I think that I did already talk about this. But y'all asked me to talk about it again. So here I am. Because I'm not in this business. But I will.

one day, maybe if I get out of this, I will think of marketing campaigns for people because it is one of my very few talents in life. So that's all of that, I think. And yes, I am, I'm willing to, I'm willing to render my services to you Peloton if you would like to compensate me. But now we all know. We all know if Peloton comes out with a better commercial, it will be because of me and you all can play them this clip. Okay, Tom Askell, he is an amazing pastor down in Florida. He is the founder of founders ministries. I've had him on the podcast before. He should go back and listen to the episode. He passed out this weekend and he was in ICU and I don't have a whole lot of information right now, but they're an incredible Christian family who have done so much good and he is just so

solid and helps and has helped the faith of so many people. So please pray for the Ask All's. Please pray for him in particular. I don't, like I said, have a any more updates, but I think you can go to his Twitter page. His daughter also has a Twitter page that has been updating. Maybe founders ministry.org. They might have an update or founders ministries.org, but please pray for the askalls. Please pray for doctors wisdom. Please pray for peace and that he would get better and make a full recovery.

He just welcomed their latest grandbaby this year. And so I know they have an entire family that's hurting and praying right now. So just keep them in your prayers. This is a longer podcast. There's just always so much going. on. But I hope you guys enjoyed it and I will see you back here on Friday. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Alley, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we

believe is true about God, humanity and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.