The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1058 -  It’s Finally Time To Throw The Democrats Out

Episode Date: November 8, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, as Americans head to the polls today, the media is already warning that the ballots could take weeks to count. There's no way to avoid this, they say. Well then how did we avoid it every election until two years ago? Also, some Democrats are starting to realize, when it's already too late, that focusing their campaign on abortion was not the best idea. Meanwhile, others on the Left have doubled down and made abortion their closing pitch. And I had a long and interesting conversation with Joe Rogan yesterday. I'll share my thoughts on that. Finally, 60 Minutes airs a report about the danger that TikTok poses to your children. But they actually understand the case considerably.  - - -  DailyWire+: Become a DailyWire+ member to access the entire DailyWire+ content catalog: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0     Join us TONIGHT at DailyWirePlus.com for Daily Wire Election Night 2022. Coverage starts at 3pm Central and runs until 11pm Central.   - - -  Today’s Sponsors: Epic Will - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.com/ Express VPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/walsh Stamps.com - Sign up for stamps.com using promo code "WALSH" for a special offer that includes a 4-week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale: https://www.stamps.com/ - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall show, as Americans head to the polls today, the media is already warning that the ballots could take weeks to count, not just days, but weeks. There's no way to avoid this, they say. Well, then how did we avoid it every election until two years ago? Also, some Democrats are starting to realize when it's already too late that focusing their campaign on abortion was not the best idea. Meanwhile, others on the left have doubled down and made abortion in their closing pitch. And I had a long and interesting conversation with Joe Rogan yesterday. I'll share my thoughts on that. Finally, 60 Minutes airs a report about the danger that TikTok post. to our children, but they actually understate the case considerably, I think. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walls Show. What are your family's values? Faith, church on Sunday, did you vaccinate your kids? Did you choose not to vaccinate your kids? How does your family define men and women? Your children look to you to define their values and their perspectives of the world,

but in the event that you die, who will ensure that the values you hold dear are upheld by your kids? Epic will can help with that. It will lets you determine who will raise your kids in the event that you die before you're done raising them. This is a big deal, and it's your responsibility as a parent. It's why we at the Daily Wire have partnered with Epicwill. Take five minutes today. Go to Epicwill.com. Use promo code Walsh to save 10% on EpicWil's complete Will package. More importantly, you've got to do this so that I know that you did it, so that you're accountable to me, so that I know that you took this crucial step towards doing the right thing and taking care of your family. I know who you are. I will be checking on you.

Go to Epicwill.com promo code Walsh. Before we get started here today, I need to mention something that I announced on Joe Rogan's show yesterday. I'll have more to say about the interview with Joe Rogan and the great conversation we had later on in the show. For now, I'll let you know that the first 15 minutes of my film, What Is a Woman, are now available to watch for free and for non-members at What Is a Woman.com. If you haven't seen the film yet, haven't yet been convinced that it's worth getting the membership for, head over to What Is Woman.com for an extended preview. and as I said, we'll talk more about the interview with Joe Rogan a little bit later on. Now, as voters head to the polls today, Democrats, you know, those fierce defenders of the democratic process, have already sent the word out. Don't trust the results. At least don't trust them at first. To be more specific, the Democrat Party message about voting results is that you shouldn't trust them until they, the Democrats, start winning.

ABC News makes the case in typical fashion, warning of a red mirage, not a red wave, but a red mirage. They say, as early election day results come in on Tuesday will likely appear that a Republican candidates vying for any number of the federal or statewide races appear to be leading their Democratic opponents, even by large margins. Their leads will dwindle or crumble completely after perceived dumps of votes are recorded by state election officials who count mail-in and absentee ballots. in the days or even weeks following election day. This phenomenon was popularized as the red mirage or the blue shift

after the 2020 presidential election when former president Donald Trump took a deceptive lead in several competitive states on election day due to delays in counting of Democrats' mail-in ballots, their preferred method of voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, only to eventually dissipate when the entire reserve of votes was totaled. Now, that's what they say, but if COVID was allegedly to blame for the alleged red mirage, then why are they warning that it will

happen again? I mean, the pandemic is over, remember? Joe Biden said so himself. ABC continues, this is likely to occur again on Tuesday, according to election experts, because of the same cocktail of factors that led to a red mirage in 2020. Democrats have continued to use mail-in voting more than their Republican counterparts, while some of the same decisive states will take a longer time to tally their mail-in absentee and provisional ballots due to to state laws that prohibit their count until late stages in the electoral process. And it's likely to occur in some of the same states where the phenomenon presented itself last cycle in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, battleground states that also

happen to feature some of the most hotly contested races of the election season. So the real cocktail of factors is that these states choose to count their ballots this way, even though they don't have to. In fact, the article acknowledges that after the chaos of the 2020 when election, there were bipartisan calls for states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to change their laws to make it easier to count the ballots on election day. They chose not to make the change. So it doesn't have to be this way. It never was this way until just two years ago.

But now that it is this way, Democrats say it must be this way and it should be this way. I mean, this is the leftist specialty, right? Radically changing something and then insisting that the thing now changed could never be anything other than what it is now, even though it was something else entirely five seconds ago. That was basically Karen Jean-Pair's message yesterday from the White House. Here she is. It took two weeks to call every state. In modern elections, more and more ballots are being cast in early voting and also by mail. And many states don't start counting those ballots until after the ballots, after the polls close on November 8th. So you heard the president say this,

night. He has been very clear on this as well. We may not know all the winners of elections for a few days. It takes time to count all legitimate ballots in a legal and orderly manner. That's how this is supposed to work. And it's important for us to all be patient when, while votes are being counted. That's how this is supposed to work. There is, of course, it's supposed to take weeks, is what you just said. Now, there's, of course, no reason at all. why it should take days, much less weeks, to count ballots? She says that these are modern elections. Well, in any other context, the mark of modernity is that things are done quicker and more efficiently.

Why should it take longer to count ballots in 2022 than it took in like 1802? They say the reason is that so many people have voted early and by mail. Well, that explanation doesn't really make sense, because if you have the ballots early, Shouldn't it be, if anything, easier to get them counted on election day? If it isn't, if early voting really makes it somehow impossible to declare a winner on the same day or even the same week, then that's all the more reason to abolish early voting. Putting aside active duty military, perhaps a few other isolated exceptions, the drawbacks of early voting and mass mail-in voting are substantially greater than the advantages, obviously.

And that's a rather easy judgment call to make because there really aren't any advantages significant enough to be factored in or weighed. The current system, you know, with mail-in voting and early voting, it affords people the opportunity to vote in their pajamas with as little effort as possible and without leaving their homes. Okay. That doesn't solve any problem or meet any pressing need. There is nothing wrong with requiring minimal effort from the electorate. In fact, it's a positive good to require minimal. effort. And besides, even with same-day in-person voting, you can still vote in your pajamas. It's not like people care about dressing presentably in public these days anyway. So the advantage is that it

makes even easier something which was already extremely easy, arguably too easy. What are the drawbacks? Well, with early voting, for one thing, you're voting before the campaign is over. The candidates haven't finished making. their cases, you may not know everything you need to know about them. What if a candidate, just to pull an example at random, say, has a stroke and becomes brain damaged after you've already voted for him? Now, in Federman's case, the brain damage happened before the primaries had even finished, but it still demonstrates the sorts of surprises and changes that can present themselves during a campaign. All the more reason to vote at the end of the campaign, not in the middle of it. I mean, there are a

of people who, after that debate with Federman and Oz, a couple of weeks ago, decided to, that they didn't want to vote for Federman anymore. Well, some of those people had already voted for him. For another thing, early voting does, in fact, provide more opportunities for cheating. Whatever you think about the prevalence of cheating, there is no debate that the longer you take to count the ballots, the more complicated and confusing it is, the more chances for funny business to occur. And that's obviously going to be the case. And finally, the current system, to use a phrase that we so often hear from Democrats these days, destabilizes our democracy. And there seems to be no disagreement on this point, right? The media, the White House, the Democrat

Party, they all acknowledge that when states take days or weeks to announce a winner in highly contentious and pivotal races, it creates lots of public anxiety and concern about the integrity and reliability of the results. They openly admit this. They're predicting it. They tell us ahead of time that Pennsylvania will take forever to count its ballots because it shows not to fix its balance counting system and that this will create from the perspective of a wide swath of the population the appearance of impropriety. Well, here's the point. Even if you don't think that cheating is happening or that it will happen, even though it certainly does and will in every election, the fact that doing it this way causes many people to have less faith in the

results, that's reason enough to not do it this way. The citizens need to trust the results. If they don't, the whole system breaks down. That is the House of Cards that the entire system is based on, the trust of the electorate. If you don't have that, you don't have anything. Do the Democrats not see or not understand these amends drawbacks to mass early voting and mail-in voting? No, of course they see it and they understand it. But to them, these are not drawbacks. They are the point. They are features, not bugs. We can only conclude that they want people to vote early and vote by mail because it means they're locking in their choice before the campaign is over and because it gives the opportunity for, let's say, post-election adjustments,

quote-unquote, and because it destabilizes our democracy. The one thing they claim to fear the most is exactly what they, in fact, want and are attempting to engineer. Because the left seeks always to destabilize, destroy, demoralize. Preservation, even of democracy, is never their goal. And that's all the more reason why they need to pay the political price. They need to be thrown out of office. And we have to do it with the system that is currently in place, however horrifically flawed it may be. Take over the system and fix it.

That has to be the goal. but it starts with your vote. Now let's get to the five headlines. You know, going online without ExpressVPN, it's like changing your clothes with the window open. You might not be seen, maybe not, but why would you give anyone the chance to invade your privacy? When you go online without a VPN,

internet service providers can see every single website you visit. What's more, they can legally sell that information to add companies and tech giants without your consent. That's why I use ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides my online activity from Internet, service providers. My identity is made anonymous and my data is encrypted for maximum protection. If it sounds complicated, it really isn't. All I have to do is fire up the app and click one button and that's it. I'm free to roam the internet without any prying eyes. ExpressVPN

works on all devices, including phones, laptops, routers so that everyone who shares your Wi-Fi can be protected. Secure your online activity today by visiting expressvpn.com slash walsh. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-V-P-N.com slash Walsh to get an extra three months free of ExpressVPN. Again, that's ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh. Here's a headline to start with the Baltimore Sun, which is the biggest newspaper in Maryland. They tweeted this yesterday, and this is 100% real, I promise you, this is not a Photoshop. It's the Baltimore Sun. They tweeted, you fell off, Matt Walsh. No one likes you, L.O.L. That's a real tweet from this, from this newspaper. Fact check, true.

Single tear rolls down the face. Actually, never mind. Come to think of it. Fact check false, missing context. Because if no one likes me, it doesn't mean I fell off because no one ever liked me to begin with. So gotcha. Checkmate. Mike drop.

You may have already guessed that the Sun's Twitter was hacked. And that's how this tweet ended up getting briefly posted. But not before I was able to screenshot that tweet and make it my header image on Twitter. So I'm very happy about that. All right, we'll move to this. It's a little bit late in the game for this realization, but here's Chris Saliza on CNN.com. Headline, did Democrats place a losing bet on abortion? He goes on, in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court decision,

overturning Roe v. Wade, Democratic strategist insisted that 2022 midterms had fundamentally shifted. Rather than an election about the economy focused on rising gas prices and inflation, they argued the election would now be a referendum on abortion rights, and the Republicans working to limit women's choices. Democrats put their money where their mouth was. In the month of October alone, listen to this. Democratic campaigns and groups spent $214 million on broadcast TV ads that mentioned abortion. 214 million, according to a CNN analysis of the data.

They accounted for nearly half of all the ad money spent by the party over that time, and it dwarfed ad spending on other topics. The next biggest issue for Democrats was crime with the party spending $79 million on the issue. less than 17% of its overall ad expenditures last month. How much do they spend on ads mentioning the economy? It says the Democrat spent less than $68 million on ads mentioning taxation and less than $18 million on ads about inflation in October. Okay, look at that contrast. $214 million about abortion.

and they spent almost $200 million less on the number one economic issue that people are actually worried about. By contrast, Republicans spent nearly $144 million on ads referencing taxation over the same period and nearly $77 million on ads mentioning inflation. And the problem for the Democrats now is that they're looking at the polls, and what they find is that the vast majority of, of, people who answer polls, even a CNN poll, the vast majority of people are not choosing abortion as their top issue. In a CNN poll, 29% of Democratic voters named abortion as their top issue. That's less than 30% of Democrat voters see abortion as their top issue. What does that tell you?

I mean, I love to say I told you so. And I said from the beginning, when Rovi Wade was overturned, We started hearing all these predictions about how this was going to radically change, you know, the game in the coming midterms, that this is all going to be about abortion now. It's going to be a referendum on abortion. People are going to flock to the polls to protect their so-called abortion rights. I said for the beginning, that, you know, that's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. Because most people don't care about abortion that much. As I always say, they should care about it.

They should care about it in the sense of being pro-life and wanting to. to protect unborn babies. But, you know, passivity, indifference on the abortion issue, this has been one of the main hurdles, one of the main obstacles that pro-lifers have been dealing with for like 40 years. And now for the first time, the Democrats are running into it as well. But then it also makes sense that, I mean, even if you're pro-life, as I am, protecting unborn babies is one of my top issues, one of the most important things to me. but also if you have your own kids, the things that are going to be like plaguing your mind every second of the day, things that you think about when you first wake up, there are going to be things that affect your kids that you have.

Things like the economy, their safety, these sorts of things. And the Democrats ignored that issue, essentially, and they're going to pay the price for it. Don't tell that to Jimmy Kimmel, though, who brought his wife on during his monologue yesterday to galvanize. pro infanticide voters. So he's making his final pitch before people go to the polls, brought his wife out for it. Another moment of brilliant comedy here from Jimmy Kimmel. Let's watch it.

I didn't know we had an alarm. Oh, we do. I didn't either. It was backstage. Okay. Why are you sounding an alarm you found backstage? Because tomorrow is election day. And abortion rights are gone or in danger in 26 states. Even though the overwhelming majority of this country supports a woman's rights to choose. Have sex.

Is your intention to have a baby? No. I just wait till you eat a gummy and then try to snuggle in. That question was for them. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't.

Thank you very much. Being a mom is the best and the hardest dog on the planet. Just a note here. Every time you have sex is your intention to have a baby. Well, obviously not. And you can't conceive a child

every time you have sex. There's just like basic realities of the biology of a woman and menstrual cycles and so on that you would hope Jimmy Kimmel's wife would understand. That would mean that that's not on the table every time you have sex. You're not going to conceive a child every time. Okay? You're not going to, if you have sex 10 times in a month, you're going to conceive 10 children. It's not the way it works. It's a really good chance you won't even conceive one. Now, so is it your intention every time you have sex to have a baby? Well, obviously not. Again, if you understand basic human biology and how these things work, then you're going to know that that's not always going to happen. However, are you as an adult aware that sex is the reproductive act,

that this is how babies are made. Babies are not made every time. They're not made most of the times when you have sex. But it is how they are made. And so there is that, potential. Even if you're using birth control, there's still technically the potential. So that's what matters. Are you aware of that? And being aware that the potential is there, did you engage in the act anyway? If you did, you chose to have sex. You're aware that it's the reproductive act, which means that there's the potential for babies to be created. And you had sex anyway. That means that if a baby is created, you chose that. You already made your choice. You've already made your choice. And the baby already exists. And now, if you're a woman, you're already a mother.

And if you're a man, you're already a father. It's already happened. The reproductive choice was made. You made that when you had sex. Not because, again, every time you have sex, you're trying to create a baby, but because you're an adult, hopefully, you understand basic human biology. and you know that every time you have sex, there is that potential. And you chose to do it. So you made your reproductive. When it comes to reproductive choice, reproductive choice is made in the, let's say, marital bed. That's where the reproductive choice is made.

If you're married, which hopefully you are. That's where the choice is made. Once the baby exists, reproduction has already occurred, so it's too late to make a choice about whether or not you're going to reproduce. Just a little bit of fact check there, but let's keep watch a little bit of this. Imagine forcing any woman who doesn't want that job to take it against her will. Six out of ten women who have an abortion already have kids at home. They know how hard the job is.

92% of abortions happen in the first 13 weeks. A good portion of the women who need one after the first trimester, do it because of health complications that could kill her or her baby. Roughly half the women who have abortions live below the poverty line. I'm sorry, are you expecting this to be funny because it is not going to be funny. No, we weren't expecting that. They don't have the resources to raise another child. This is Jimmy Kimmel's show.

They don't have the money to drive to another state to get health care. The only person who should be making a life-altering and potentially life-saving decision for a woman and her body is the woman herself. This dumb alarm asking you guys to love abortion. I'm asking you to love women enough, to trust women enough to make their own difficult decisions, and to vote for the people who will make that happen tomorrow. Our daughters should not have to fight the battles that our grandmothers won. Great. And this is what they're hoping will galvanize, again, the pro-infanticide masses to get out there.

And it will. I mean, there will be some who show up. But the thing is, the people that care that deeply about abortion, like this is the most important thing in the world to them. These are like left-wing activists who are already going to be voting, who are already going to vote three or four times probably. And even their dead relatives were already going to vote. So they've already enlisted everyone they can. You've already got them. But if you're trying to speak to the heart and soul of just like the average American,

the average American, we talk about what they wake up worrying about. They don't wake up worried that their children won't be able to kill their grandchildren when they get older. That's just not what they're worried about. And I always have to ask whenever this comes up, and you always hear this in these pro-abortion speeches, a woman should be able to make this difficult choice for herself. But what makes it a difficult choice? Why is the choice difficult? If it's just a clump of cells, doesn't mean anything, it's a reproductive decision.

It's not difficult at all. What makes it difficult? The only thing that makes it difficult is if we are acknowledging and recognizing the humanity of the baby. And if we're doing that, then we see that this has nothing to do with the woman's choice. That's not the question here. The question is not whether women have a choice. They did have a choice. Just like the man had a choice before he engaged in the reproductive act.

But that's not the question. The question is whether a human child possesses basic human rights, or if those human rights are magically, you know, imbued into the child when he passes through the birth canal. That's the question. And of course, we know that the latter just doesn't make any sense at all. All right, as mentioned, I was on Joe Rogan yesterday. Actually, I was on his show last week with the episode aired yesterday, and it was a It was great to appear on the show as on or it was surreal,

surreal too, because I think I started listening to Joe Rogan's podcast, I don't know, eight or nine years ago maybe. And it was a, I thought, really good conversation, the first half of which, about 90 minutes, was dedicated to the film, what is a woman, an issue surrounding it. Lots of clips are circulating from that part of the conversation, or you could watch the whole episode,

which is what I would recommend on Spotify. But I wanted to play this one moment in particular was interesting. In my biased opinion, in my humble opinion, I thought this was an interesting moment, when we talked about the ways that narcissism drives gender ideology. And this is a point that Joe Rogan brought up and made, and then I, you know, said my piece. And here's that. You're giving them an opportunity to be special and to get special treatment without any special act. They haven't done anything that warrants that unique behavior. Yeah, I think that's a really important point.

I think that's actually so much of this and people don't notice it. But a lot of this is just standard narcissism. Yes. Especially you listen to these. You know, why is this so common among celebrities now? All the celebrities have trans kids and they're coming out as non-binary and whatever else. And then you listen to them like Demi Lovato or whoever. And you listen to them explain why there are they them.

It's always, well, I just, I don't identify with these labels. I'm beyond that. I'm above that. It's like these labels were good enough for billions of humans before you, but it's not good enough for you. You can't find yourself there. But all these other billions of human beings, it was fine. They had no problem. But you're so special that we need to change the rules of the English language for you specifically.

It's incredibly egotistical. It's bizarre. It's like if you feel that you're different than everyone else, you're still a female. You're just a different human being who happens to be a female. If you're so unique, go prove it with your actions. Pro prove it with your work. Prove it out there in the world. But to demand this very special attention.

And that's what we give people. Like if you give people that thing today, they'll tell, there's groups of people that will tell you, you're amazing, you're incredible, you're beautiful, you're brave. It gives them positive affirmation for making these decisions. It's also part of what you're describing is personality, right? I mean, so if you're saying, I'm a female, but I don't identify with girly things and I don't like the color pink and whatever. Okay, that's your personality.

And it's fine. There are many ways to be a woman. There are many ways to be a man. It's like almost infinite ways of doing it because each man and woman has their own personality, their own perspective of the world. And that's fine. So I think that what I'm expressing is more. the kind of traditional idea is much more expansive because it allows you as a man to just, you know, be who you are. You're still a man, but be who you are. The idea now is that if you're,

well, if you're a man, but you have interests or ideas that fall outside of the standard norm, now you lose your manhood. You're actually a woman. So they're actually reinforcing the gender binary while trying to destroy it at the same time, which is interesting. But I think most of what they're trying to describe is actually just personality. And now we have this, situation where, you know, you can have a person who has five different genders and six sexual orientations, but no personality, because their personality has been subsumed by all of these labels. They've categorized and labeled and everything, and it's really strange. This is really good to hear, I'm not talking about my part, that was really good to hear from me.

Now, it's good. I can't emphasize enough how great it is to hear from somebody like Joe Rogan with his audience. Now, I could go out there. make the case and talk about these things. And I will and I do and I hope that I can have some effect. But it, you know, Joe Rogan, who the left is try to try to sort of brand him as this right-wing extremist fundamentalist, which of course couldn't be further from the truth, as we'll find, as we'll see in the next clip we're going to play. But that's obviously not what he is and what he is. And he has a, you know, he's just, he's like a mainstream guy in a lot of ways. And he has a mainstream audience. And here he is identifying the truth, which is that gender ideology

is rooted in narcissism, is rooted in self-obsession. And a lot of it is, you know, born from this desire that people have to, you know, not be like everybody else. To just be kind of a normal person seems boring and it's beneath them. And so it's their vanity that says that no, you know, because you only have access to your own inner experience. Obviously, you don't have access to anybody else's. And so if you have your inner experience and you just assume, so if you're a man having an inner experience, like, how could you even say that, well, this is not the inner experience that a man is supposed to have? How do you know that? you only have you're a man and this is your inner experience and so and you've only ever experienced

the inner experience of one man which is yourself so how do you know what are you comparing it to I think a lot of it there's mental illness wrapped up in this as well there are other factors but in many cases especially with the older people especially with celebrities as we said it's just the assumption it's the vanity based assumption that whatever they're feeling must be more profound, must be very different from what other people experience. And so they can't make do with the labels that billions of people before them have made do with. Now, the second half of the interview became a debate about gay marriage. And I wasn't expecting really that we would talk about that issue, but it came up. And that's how things developed. And I was happy to talk

about it. It is, of course, it's a relatively high pressure situation in front of a very large audience debating a guy who on this issue anyway is diametrically opposed to my view. And I think going into a situation like this, it's important, first of all, you know, you don't want to get defensive or combative. There are occasions where being combative and taking that stance is appropriate. And as you know, I'm more than happy to, you know, approach something that way if it calls for it. But talking to a guy like Joe Rogan and an environment like that, it's going to hurt your cause more than help it if you seem to be getting sort of like defensive and angry. So you don't want to take that approach. You also don't want to get lost in the weeds.

And I know I'm always harping on this, but this is a mistake I see people make all the time of getting lost in the weeds, debating 100 different side topics tangentially connected to the main one. And that's what can so often happen on a topic like this if you talk about it, especially for as long as we did. We went on about it for like an hour. And then, of course, the final mistake that conservatives can often make when it comes to this issue in particular, which is marriage, the mistake that they could make was just to fold and run away and not want to talk about it at all, or even to suddenly adopt the opposite view in order to get along and seem cool in front of the new audience. So obviously, I wasn't going to do that.

The goal then is to try to calmly lay out a defense of marriage in a clear and simple and firm way. That's what I attempted to do anyway. We'll play this clip. It's kind of long. It's about three minutes. As I said, this is from an, I don't know, an 80-minute back-and-front. forth on this topic that took up basically the second half of the podcast and you can go and watch the whole thing if you want but I think this gives us a pretty good taste of what it was let's watch

it what if any negative aspects would there be to people doing that if they're gay well the issue is that from my perspective and from their perspective of most human societies that have existed in history is that marriage is the context in which the procreative union occurs. Marriage is the foundation for the family. It's something that is reserved for that because the male-female union has this capacity to create life, whereas no other union has that capacity.

And so it is a different kind of thing. And it makes sense to call it something different. It's like if a, you know, if human society were to collapse overnight. And we all woke up with an amnesia and didn't remember anything about what happened before. And we're rebuilding society from scratch. And we look around and we see that, oh, there are some couplings over here that have this weird habit of creating people. And there are other couplings where there are no people being created. We would probably call that something different. It's a different kind of thing. It's also more important to society. Like society

needs that. You're going to keep society going because you're creating people. And that's what marriage was. It was the context for that procreative union. But what about gay couples who get surrogate parents to carry their children or who adopt children? That's very common. Yeah, it's common, but that's not the union itself is not creating the child. But it's a man-made institution. We've decided that we should involve the law and to join a male and a female who create a family. Like, why would that be mutually exclusive why would that why would that not apply to a gay couple well

again part of it is it's a it's a matter of definitions so it's a little bit like the what is a woman questions like what is what is marriage me I I I but doesn't that seem like an easier one like two people love each other this is my life partner this is the person I want to be with the day I die let's get married everybody is happy just everybody celebrates why just two people why just two people Well, I don't know. Why only two people with heterosexuals? Because that's not a waste of case. Well, because only two people can create another person, you know. No, you can have another person involved and they can have your kid too.

Isn't that what the Mormons did? Yeah, but only two people can actually create Two people at a time. Right, right, exactly. Okay. And yeah, that's one of the reasons why I would also, you know, if we want to call it heterosexual polygamy, I'm not a proponent of that because you know when when two people create another person the person the child that they've created now needs and deserves and has a right to um be raised in a in a stable environment with a with a with a mom and a dad who are living together in the house that's what we should endeavor as a society to provide every uh child and children need they need both the child needs a mom and a dad

you know one thing that kept coming up uh over the course of the of the following hour was the question of what harm is caused by gay marriage. You know, he revisited this point, asked the question several different times, how does it harm anyone to expand the definition of marriage? And again, on that point, you could go many different directions potentially, and there are a lot of weeds you could get lost in. But from my experience talking about issues like this in hostile environments, not that Joe Rogan was hostile to me personally, I just mean in, you know, in, you know,

in an environment where people are opposed to what you're saying. And in that kind of environment, you want to focus on the strongest points. And again, not get lost, which I see people do all the time. And so I tried to convey that the primary harm caused by expanding marriage is to make it meaningless, to make it irrelevant, and thus to make the institution itself irrelevant in people's eyes. Which, as I pointed out later on, in the conversation, We are seeing that play out right now.

You know, we're seeing people giving up on marriage. Marriage rates are declining. The age of first marriage is going up because fewer people are getting married or it's not a priority to them. And so they're waiting longer to get married. And because they see it as not an important thing. It's basically irrelevant. In a funny way, Joe Rogan actually agreed with me in a certain way because he said at one point that he thinks marriage is, in his word, silly.

And that was my point. By discarding the procreative aspect of marriage, its fundamental purpose, its defining features, or one of its most important defining features, you make it useless and pointless. You make it, yeah, silly. You know, he defined it there.

Marriage is between two people who love each other. You know, I asked them, well, why two people? No real reason for it to be just two people. and why, I mean, how do you define love? And why do they need to love each other? And why do you need a piece of paperwork codifying the fact that you love someone? What's the point of that? It does seem, that seems silly.

So that version of marriage, as we want to call expanded definition, which you can't really expand the definition, you can just destroy the definition. You can dismantle it. But with that dismantled definition, you end up with something that is silly. And of course, the reality for both of us is that, once you wait into these waters on a topic like this, it is in some ways it's like a lose-lose proposition. For Joe Rogan it is because even though he's disagreeing with me,

the very fact that he has me on the show and that he's talking about this and that he's letting me make my case and he's taking my argument seriously, that's going to get him in trouble on the left, and it did. And for me on a topic like this in that environment, obviously the left's going to hate me for what I'd say, but who cares about that? But also on the right, there's going to be a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking. No matter how you approach it. Like whatever argument you make, there's going to be people who say,

well, you should have made this argument instead. Whatever approach you take, well, you should have taken that approach. And that's fine. Most, mostly from people who have never debated any of these issues in an environment any more high stakes than their living room or their Twitter page. And yet they are pretty sure they know how they would have handled it, fine, whatever. But I did want to address one thing. One criticism that I've heard from people on the right for how I,

approach this. And what I've heard from some Christians is that I should have based my argument on Scripture, on God. I shouldn't have, as I'm accused, taken God out of it, which I didn't, of course. Anytime you're talking about the true definition of marriage, you can't take God out of that. God is there. But I should have explicitly said that marriage is a man and a woman, because that's how God designed it. And that's what Scripture declares. That's what they wanted me. to say, and I didn't say that. But here's the problem. To me, it's quite obvious. To a secular audience, arguing that marriage is a certain way because the Bible says so is not going to be convincing or useful to then. It's not going to be a useful argument in that environment. Because in order for

the Bible says so to be a compelling argument, you first need the other person in the discussion to believe that there is a God and that the Bible is his word. So those are two big things you need that person to accept before, because the Bible says so, is going to mean anything to them. And I don't really see the point of having an argument with someone or trying to communicate with them if you are not going to say things that are meaningful to them. Which means that if you want, if you want to take that direction, then that would mean that you need to actually abandon the marriage conversation completely and instead say, you know what, let's say, you know what, let's first debate about the existence of God and the validity of the Bible. And then you've just,

you've, you've abandoned the marriage conversation entirely so that you can have this other debate. And I think that would be a very unfortunate decision. And I do see Christians do this sometimes on topic like marriage when they're asked, well, you know, why do you believe in so-called traditional marriage? And very often I'll hear a Christian say, well, because God says so, Bible says so. And then it becomes a debate about the existence of God. And I find that, you know, an unfortunate strategy because there is a defense of the nature of marriage that you can make without immediately throwing the Bible verse at the person who doesn't care what the Bible says. And the defense is exactly what I tried to articulate there.

That marriage is a certain thing. It has a certain definition, which is based in the actual physical function of the man-woman relationship. And that's also, as we've talked about later on in the conversation, that's also why you find, through history, marriage as an institution exists in every culture in history, even cultures that are not Christian. Now, there might be some cultures where they have polygamy or things like that, but the idea of marriage existing and being between a man and a woman and being a fundamentally procreative act, you find that all throughout history and all over the world. Because it's a matter of just natural law. You can find it in nature. And it's a, in a lot of

ways, a common sense thing. The man-woman relationship has this capacity to create people. And that sets this relationship apart from any other kind of relationship. And it also makes it important to society in ways that other relationships simply aren't. It needs to be protected in ways that other relationships simply don't because of its capacity to create people and because it is, whether you like it or not, going to be the foundation of the family and thereby the foundation of human civilization. And the good thing is that if you can make that argument, and of course you're not going to convince someone in the moment on something like this, most likely you're not going to. But you make the argument, you make the point. If you can even get someone to take it

seriously and listen to you, you know, you've brought them closer to the truth, which means that you've also brought them closer to God, whose God is truth. So that was the approach there, which to me seems clearly the way to go in that kind of environment. All right, we're going to not have five whole headlines because we've got to get now to the comment section. Well, if you're a small business owner, you know how important it is to be prepared for the holiday season. If you haven't started preparing for the chaos of holiday mailing and shipping, you're already behind. But luckily, Stamps.com has everything you need to make your life much easier. You can sign up now and you'll be printing your own postage in minutes. Stamps.com

is a one-stop shop for all your shipping and mailing needs. It's a 24-7 post office that you can access from anywhere. No lines, no traffic, no hassle. For 20 years, Stamps.com has been indispensable for over one million businesses. You can get access to the USPS and UPS services. that you need to run your business right from your computer, even save up to 86% on USPS and UPS shipping rates. Use Stamps.com to print postage wherever you do business. All you need is a computer and a printer. It's as simple as that.

If you need a package picked up, you can easily schedule it through your Stamps.com dashboard. Everything is very easy. That's the name of the game. Rates are constantly changing, but with Stamps.com's switch and save feature, you can easily compare carriers and rates so you know you're getting the best deal every time.

If you're running an online store, Stamps.com works seamlessly with all the major shipping, shopping cards and marketplaces. So get ahead of the holiday chaos this year. Get started with Stamps.com today. Sign up with promo code Walsh for a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a free digital scale. No long-term commitments or contracts. Just go to Stamps.com, click the microphone at the top of the page and enter code Walsh. All right. I jiped you out of two headlines there. I'll have to make it up to you later. Bradley Tarr says, when are we going to stop blaming politicians and representatives and mayors for crime and start blaming fatherless homes? Well, I think we can, you know, who says we have to choose? We can blame them all.

But, yeah, fatherless homes are at the root of all this, which is why, again, marriage serves as the foundation of human civilization. You get away from marriage, then you end up with, you're getting away from civilization. Civilization starts to collapse as we're seeing, especially in a lot of these communities. So you're right. But that doesn't mean that we let politicians and mayors and off the hook, especially because if they're Democrats, they are behind this agenda to undermine the family and marriage and to destroy it, which means that they are creating more fatherless homes. J. Rod says, I'll be honest, the opening guitar riff for the show is tasty A.A.A.A. I don't even know what that means, J. Rod, but thanks, I guess. Abdi says, I'm so disappointed with my grandpa.

He's voting Democrat next week. When he was alive, he was a staunch Republican. Well done. Well done, sir. Poor ma'am. Let's see. Aaron Blank says, even if the thing about inflation not being in the common lexicon were true, is Joy Reid suggesting that learning new English vocabulary terms is a bad thing.

Right, that's the other interesting thing about her claim that, well, no one used the word inflation before. That's obviously not correct, but also, well, then great, then they learned a new term. They learned a useful, new economic term. And obviously, it doesn't matter if they use the term or not. Everybody understands the idea that, like, prices are going up. So whether you call that inflation, whatever you call it, it's something that we can all see happening and we're all experiencing. broken controller says, Hey Matt, I was just curious, if when J.K. Rowling tweeted out her stance on trans people and Daniel Radcliffe revolted, would you have had the same reaction

if she had tweeted defending abortion and Daniel Radcliffe had revolted against her then? I know an unlikely scenario. If you'd have the same reaction, then great. But if not, wouldn't that suggest your problem with Radcliffe is more with the stance that he took and less that he took it against the woman who gave him his career? I just can't imagine you attacking someone

for holding a position that agrees with yours, because it disagrees with someone else. Any response would be appreciated SBG for life. Well, you are right. I mean, guilty is charged. So the fact that Daniel Radcliffe came after J.K. Rowling for her stance defending biological reality, I criticized him for the disloyalty

that this woman, as you say, gave him his career, and then he turns around and stabs her in the back. But I'm all the more critical because the position that he's taking is wrong. And so I'm always going to give a lot more leeway to people when they're right. If he was throwing her under the bus in the name of truth, then that would certainly paint his actions in at least a more favorable light. So it's always worse to defend a lie than to defend the truth.

But even then, you know, part of it is it's not just that he's wrong. It's that he's jumping on a dog pile, right? Like, whether J.K. Rowling is wrong or right, and obviously she's right about this issue. But there are already 50 million other people telling her that she's wrong and criticizing her. And she's, so she's already got this massive dog pile on top of her trying to rip her to shreds. And so what even is, like, even if she actually was wrong, right? So let's say she says something and she's wrong about what she says. and then you've got millions of people dogpiling on her,

and then you're someone you know her, and she's been someone who's been very important to your career, you're going to jump on the dog pile? What's even the, even if you don't know her, what's the point? Like, she's already, this, this, there's already 50 million people who came before you to make the same person. So what do you need to get your hit in for? Why do you need to just come along and, like, kick this person

where they're already on the ground? But then to do it to write, to do it to someone who's been so, important to your career, it just shows a disloyalty. And the appropriate way to risk to handle that situation, like if you know someone, if you're professionally tied to someone, again, it doesn't mean that you never criticize them publicly. It does mean that you should be very hesitant to jump on a dog pile, again, whether they're wrong or right. But if you do feel the need to criticize them, it should start personally. You see, like, privately. You reach out to them privately and you and you let them know your thoughts because you because you know them right

rather than as they did to her just as I said jumping on the dog pile like that well today is going to be a bloodbath at least we're hoping and I for one could not be more excited and I'm inviting you to tune in and watch our special daily wire election night 2022 coverage election coverage starts at 3 p.m. Central and then starting at 6 p.m. Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Clavin, our God King with lowercase G, Jeremy Boring, Candice Owen. and myself, will be giving our live updates as the results come in with help of our Morning Wire crew. We'll also be mocking social media meltdowns that will surely be happening from the likes of AOC and many others, we hope. And there will also be some very special guests joining us for commentary as well.

DailyWire election night, 2022 will be the gift that keeps on giving this year. And you don't want to miss a second of it. If you're not yet a member, go to dailywire.com slash Walsh and join us today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. For our daily cancellation today, we turn to 60 minutes, but not to cancel them this time. In fact, 60 minutes on Sunday committed a rare, and we must suspect inadvertent act of journalism with its report on the corrosive effects of social media. Now, much of their report focused on the ways that social media supposedly breeds anger and division,

which is not my concern personally. I don't think that the Internet causes or breeds anger and division so much as it gives a forum for these things to be made manifest. In my view, that's one of social media's positive attributes, if anything. People who are angry about the direction of our country and our culture are going to be able to voice their concerns, organize, mobilized through the Internet, and that's a good thing. As for the division, our national divide is rooted in the diametrically opposed worldviews that broadly separates the two ends of the political spectrum. It's a spectrum that hardly even is a spectrum anymore as a vast chasm cuts right down the middle of it.

And this divide is incredibly apparent on social media, but I don't think social media invented it. So the part of the 60 Minutes report that I found important and worthwhile was rather the section which focused on TikTok and its effect on children specifically. Let's watch that. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed, pour your money back.

Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at lifelock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply. It's owned by a Chinese company called Bite Dance, and Harris says the version that's served to Chinese consumers called Do Yien is very different from the one available in the West. In their version of TikTok, if you're under 14 years old, they show you science experiments you can do at home,

museum exhibits, patriotism videos, and educational videos. And they also limit it to only 40 minutes per day. Now, they don't ship that version of TikTok to the rest of the world. So it's almost like they recognize that technologies influencing kids development and they make their domestic version, a spinach version of TikTok, while they ship the opium version to the rest of the world. The version served to the West has kids hooked for hours at a time. The impact Harris says is predictable.

There's a survey of preteens in the U.S. and China asking, what is the most aspirational career that you want to have? In the U.S., the number one was influencer. Social media influencer. And in China, the number one was, astronaut. Again, you allow those two societies to play out for a few generations. I can tell you what your world is going to look like. TikTok tells us it gives American users tools to limit screen time, but those tools are entirely voluntary. So nothing to see here except that TikTok is a communist

siop aimed at making our children shallow and stupid. And not just shallow and stupid, because the other incredibly significant effect of social media, not just TikTok, of course, on our kids. is that it is yet one more force separating them from us as the parents. This is the aspect not discussed nearly enough, and which is rarely mentioned in news reports lamenting rampant social media addiction among kids. They often leave this part out. You know, the average kid spends nine hours a day consuming media of various kinds, usually through their phone.

And if you're anything like the statistically average parent, then you have really no clue about the nature of the images, sounds, and ideas that he ingests during that span. And naturally, we take this all for granted. We assume that this dynamic is natural and normal and basically healthy. Our children exist in their own worlds, their own culture, their own language, their own value system, their own celebrities. They become disciples in the cults of various idiots on YouTube or TikTok or wherever. All of these figures obscure to us. And we imagine that this is just how it inevitably must be. There's no other feasible option, we think. And we're wrong. Because while it's true that older generations have

always worried about the younger and the younger generations have always exhibited characteristics that older generations find puzzling and troubling, it's not true that young people have always existed as they do now in their own universes, their own societies, with their own leaders and icons and prophets, their own religions, their own customs, all of it designed to be indecipherable and inaccessible to the older generations. In fact, in the bad old days, kids were, if you can imagine it, raised by their parents, almost exclusively, not by the internet or TV or even public school. Kids didn't have a whole life separate apart from their mothers and fathers. They may have had friends, a few, not 40, not 4,000, but it was their parents who exerted the most influence over them,

making and shaping and forming them as parents are supposed to do. And things started to change with modern schooling, which sent kids out of the home for most of their young lives and, you know, into the care of strangers. And then the divide became, between generations became even more vast with pop culture as kids began to develop tastes that differed so dramatically from their parents. Yet even then, it wasn't like it is now. Because, yeah, kids in the 50s and 60s, they worshipped, you know, Elvis as a god. And their parents thought that Elvis was an agent of Satan. But their parents at least knew who Elvis was. Elvis was accessible equally to both parent and child. You saw him on TV. You heard him on the radio. You bought his music at the store. And that was about it. That's how you

encountered him. And then the internet. And now kids have their own version of Elvis. They have like, in fact, a lot of elvases, a lot of little elvases that they follow and worship and imitate, just as kids of the 50s and 60s did. But they encounter these new icons in the void of cyberspace, mostly on their phones out of sight. And there isn't just one Elvis, but 400, and they pop up and fade away and change on a dime. The trends move at the speed of light. And the only way to follow along is to be totally immersed in it and surrendered to it. So our kids are pulled along by these forces. They're shaped and molded by forces that we don't see or understand. And we as parents are rendered irrelevant because of the child's phone. In fact, if your child's

is on his phone nine hours a day. It's the phone, and the people that he interacts with and watches when he uses it, that will form him. It's the phone that parents him. Your second fiddle at best. And he's not going to hear the tune you're playing because he's on his phone anyway. So this is not normal. It's not healthy. It's not natural. It's not how it's always been. There's really nothing quite analogous to this in the history of human society. like the idea of one gadget, one sort of little portal that kids carry around in their pockets, taking over their lives to this extent. There is no analogy in history.

Our kids are being destroyed by these gadgets that we spend exorbitant amounts of money to provide to them. And I think we have no idea how bad it's going to get. As our lives migrate more and more into our phones and our children are resigned, to an existence that can barely be called human at this point. So what do we do about it? Well, I think there are two possible paths forward. There's the path that most parents today seem to take, which is that you just sort of go with it.

You hand your child the phone with internet access when he's nine or ten or whenever, whenever most of his friends get one, and you give him one too because you don't want him to feel left out, And you just trust that it will work out okay. Sure, he's like 100% guaranteed to develop a porn habit. Sure, he'll spend all day absorbing messages and ideas that are anathema to his intellectual and spiritual and emotional development. Sure, his entire life will now revolve around this damned thing.

Sure, all of that is true. But what's the other option? To deprive him of this technology that everyone else uses? That would make him look uncool. Worse, it would make the parent look uncool. People might think that you're poor and you can't afford one. And the trends. How can your family keep up with the trends without the phone?

You can't be untrendy. You can't let your kids be untrendy. Dear God, anything but untrendiness. So that's one path. And if you take that path, then TikTok is going to remain a problem in your life and your family for your kids. But then number two, the other option is the path less traveled. The path that some people would consider extreme. Keep your kid away from the Internet as much as human life.

possible. Don't let him have the internet on his phone. Don't let him access the internet in his room. Give him access to one computer, strictly controlled, in a visible area of the house, which he can use with your permission for a limited amount of time with the knowledge that you, the parent, will review his internet history after he's finished and go back and watch any videos he watched and click on the links he clicked and read every message he received. give him no privacy on the internet at all, none. Don't trust your child with the internet. That's the worst thing you could do.

Treat the internet like a very powerful and potentially dangerous tool, which it is, and treat him like a child who can't be allowed to use it unsupervised, which he is. So that's the other option. And the great thing is that 60 Minutes talking about TikTok and all these different things, if you take that option, then you don't need to worry about TikTok nearly as much. And so I think that option is probably the best. And I say that as somebody who makes a living on the Internet. So with all that said, what is canceled today?

Well, I guess parents who give their kids phones are, once again, we must say, canceled. So that'll do it for this portion of the show. I hope you get out and vote. But before you do, we'll get over to our member block of the program. and hope to see you there. If not, talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.