The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 452 - The Media Misses Trump's Point, Episode 98,618,012

00:00:00.000 Today on The Matt Walsh Show, President Trump yesterday compared the coronavirus to car accidents,

00:00:05.320 and he's been mocked and derided for this comparison. But I think people are missing

00:00:09.840 the very important ethical point that Trump was trying to raise, the media especially missing the

00:00:14.720 point, as they usually do with President Trump, intentionally, of course. So we're going to take

00:00:20.620 a deep dive into this ethical point that Trump was raising, because I think it's important,

00:00:25.540 and we'll talk about that today. Also, five headlines, including Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden,

00:00:29.100 both in separate TV interviews about the virus babbling nonsensically. At least to me,

00:00:33.480 it seems like they're just babbling nonsensically, but I'll play the clips, and you tell me if you

00:00:38.660 can make heads or tails of it. And today, we'll cancel a feminist lawmaker who thinks that the 1.00

00:00:44.200 coronavirus is essentially a weapon of the patriarchy, because, of course, everything

00:00:47.800 with feminists, everything is about them, including the coronavirus. And that is obviously stupid for 1.00

00:00:53.500 a number of reasons, and we'll get into all of that today. But first, before we go anywhere further,

00:00:59.100 I want to tell you about our friends over at Stamps.com. You know, I think it's always good

00:01:05.800 to avoid the post office if you can, because of the lines, because of the crowds and everything else,

00:01:10.840 especially these days, I think. We're all looking for ways to avoid the post office,

00:01:16.120 and that's where Stamps.com comes in. You know, but the question is, what if you need to mail something?

00:01:22.420 What if you have needs where you would usually go to the post office for that? What if you need

00:01:26.980 postage to send out letters and packages, whatever the case may be? Well, don't worry.

00:01:31.780 Stamps.com is here to help. How? Well, anything you can do at the post office, you can do at

00:01:36.060 Stamps.com. It's that simple. Prints postage on demand. You can skip those lines. And the crowd

00:01:43.120 at the post office, which, again, these days, I think we're all looking to do. Here at Daily Wire,

00:01:47.820 we've been using Stamps.com since 2017, and that means that we've saved a whole lot of time. And

00:01:53.480 saving time also means saving money. Simply use your computer to print official U.S. postage 24-7

00:01:58.320 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it. Once your mail is

00:02:02.720 ready, you just leave it for your mail carrier, or you can schedule a free pickup, package pickup,

00:02:09.080 drop it in the mailbox, whatever it is. No human contact required. It's that simple. Right now,

00:02:14.640 my listeners get a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a digital

00:02:20.500 scale without any long-term commitment. Just go to Stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top

00:02:25.960 of the homepage, and type in Walsh. That's Stamps.com. Enter Walsh. Stay safe out there.

00:02:31.640 All right. President Trump, as I said, getting a lot of grief for a point he made during a virtual

00:02:38.520 town hall on Fox News and answering a question about his contention that the shutdown should come

00:02:43.760 to an end relatively soon. Trump returned to an analogy that he's certainly not the first person to

00:02:49.880 raise this, but so it's somewhat familiar, but I think it's important. So listen to this.

00:02:54.540 I brought some numbers here. We lose thousands and thousands of people a year to the flu.

00:02:59.300 We don't turn the country off. I mean, every year. Now, when I heard the number, you know,

00:03:04.280 we average 37,000 people a year. Can you believe that? And actually, this year, we're having a bad

00:03:10.560 flu season, but we lose thousands of people a year to the flu. We never turn the country off.

00:03:16.760 We lose much more than that to automobile accidents. We didn't call up the automobile

00:03:22.200 companies and say, stop making cars. We don't want any cars anymore. We have to get back to work.

00:03:27.880 And then comes the screaming headlines and the outraged tweets and everything else,

00:03:33.540 as we have come to expect. An editorial in the Washington Post takes Trump to task for this

00:03:40.340 analogy, a bad analogy, the Washington Post says. And the article argues that car accidents and the

00:03:47.280 coronavirus are not the same because diseases are transmissible, whereas car accidents are not.

00:03:53.000 And their death rates can grow exponentially where you don't find that with car accidents.

00:03:57.680 And this seems to be the standard response to this analogy where we're told we cannot make these

00:04:02.880 kinds of comparisons because two very different things cannot be compared in this way.

00:04:07.760 Well, first of all, not to focus too much on the semantics of this, but comparisons are,

00:04:13.440 in fact, only valid when they are made between two different things. Comparing the coronavirus to

00:04:19.620 the coronavirus would be rather redundant and probably unhelpful. And I blame the, I think I've

00:04:25.020 complained about this before, the apples and oranges phrase. I blame that for people don't understand

00:04:32.600 what a comparison is. And so when someone wants to say that a comparison is invalid, they say,

00:04:37.880 oh, it's like comparing apples and oranges. What are you talking about? You can compare apples and

00:04:41.260 oranges in a million different ways. That's a perfectly valid comparison between apples and oranges.

00:04:47.060 The fact that they're different is what makes you able to compare them.

00:04:53.180 Now, it's true that nothing that is not the coronavirus is exactly like the coronavirus,

00:05:00.600 but we can still pull from our experience dealing with other deadly problems in order to inform our

00:05:07.140 efforts in dealing with this one. But more to the point, the response from the Washington Post and

00:05:12.240 others misses the basic point that the analogy seems to be trying to make. Trump was not suggesting

00:05:19.180 that we handle the coronavirus like we handle car accidents or that the two things are similar in

00:05:26.560 any sort of practical way. This rather, I think, is a point about the ethical dilemma at work here.

00:05:34.700 So about 35,000 people die in car accidents every year in this country. Many more are maimed and

00:05:41.800 crippled. I don't know what that number is, but we know that it's many more, it's many times more than 1.00

00:05:46.400 35,000. And that works out to, just looking at the fatality rate, that's about 100 people dead per

00:05:53.020 day, half of them under the age of 50. So this is a problem that affects especially the young.

00:05:59.000 Globally, the yearly death toll is a million, more than a million. So an immense amount of pain,

00:06:05.120 misery, destruction, and death is absolutely guaranteed every year that we allow cars to be

00:06:11.480 on the road. And we can take safety precautions like we do. We can minimize the problem as much

00:06:16.940 as possible. But we know, we absolutely know, just ask the car insurance companies. We know that there

00:06:24.820 will be around 30,000 to 35,000 fatal car accidents every single year. Now, even though we all know this,

00:06:35.180 nobody ever suggests that all cars be banned. And for the purposes of this conversation, I'm going to

00:06:43.240 put aside the extremist environmentalists who advocate for banning cars on the basis that they're,

00:06:49.580 you know, going to kill the entire world in 11 years. Those people do, but for an entirely different

00:06:55.020 reason. Nobody that I've ever heard advocates banning cars in order to stop all these car accident

00:07:03.320 deaths. Even something like raising the driving age to 30, that's a move that would save thousands of

00:07:12.040 young lives. And it's not nearly as extreme as getting rid of all cars, but that's not seriously

00:07:18.540 suggested or considered. Even something like a mandatory federal minimum speed limit of 40 miles an hour.

00:07:28.100 For the most part, nobody advocates that. So nobody advocates getting rid of cars. Nobody advocates

00:07:34.780 even less stringent measures like raising the driving age to 30, lowering the speed limit

00:07:43.540 significantly. Why is that? Well, though nobody would ever put it like this,

00:07:51.700 it's because we've decided that 35,000 dead people is a cost worth paying in order to keep our cars.

00:08:03.240 All of that death, all that pain, all of those countless lives destroyed, it's all worth it, we say,

00:08:08.960 so that we can get from point A to point B quicker. Again, nobody would ever phrase it like this,

00:08:15.200 and we don't like to think of it like this, but this is the calculation. There's no way around it.

00:08:22.820 If you think that we should keep cars on the road and we should keep driving around,

00:08:27.340 then you are saying, you are absolutely saying that those 35,000 dead people who are guaranteed,

00:08:34.780 the 30 to 35,000 dead people that are guaranteed next year, in the coming year, are worth the cost.

00:08:40.180 That is what you are saying. Anybody who really disagrees, I mean really disagrees,

00:08:46.400 and actually thinks that that's not a cost worth paying, would be calling for the prohibition of

00:08:51.440 all motor vehicles. Yet nobody is. Now, you might argue that cars save more lives than they take. Well,

00:09:00.960 and I could see how you would try to argue that, how would a person in a medical emergency get to

00:09:06.420 the hospital as quickly as they need to if we don't have ambulances. But it's at a minimum

00:09:12.020 debatable whether ambulances save more people than car accidents kill. I'm not sure if that's true or

00:09:16.860 not. And besides, a very easy solution is available there. We could ban all cars except emergency

00:09:22.800 vehicles. And this would save even more lives because now the fire trucks and police cars and

00:09:28.020 ambulances can get around and they don't have to worry about congested highways and cluttered streets

00:09:31.680 and everything else. Yet, once again, nobody argues for that. We've decided that the infringement on

00:09:37.880 our lifestyles and our liberties that a motor vehicle ban would entail is not worth the lives

00:09:44.540 it would save. You look all across society and we find these sorts of calculations being made.

00:09:53.680 Even though we make them implicitly, we make them without thinking much about them,

00:09:57.860 we are still making them in our homes too. In fact, I have a personal story related to this that I want

00:10:04.140 to relay in just one second. But first, let's check in with Rock Auto. You know, in keeping with the

00:10:10.500 theme here, if something goes wrong with your car and you need to get it fixed, you still need your cars

00:10:17.900 to work, well, what are you going to do? You probably, you know, if you don't want to go to the store,

00:10:24.580 maybe you can't depending on the situation in your state. That's why you want to be able to order

00:10:28.860 online. And because there's so many different types of cars, it's impossible to keep them all

00:10:33.000 stocked. Even if you do go into a, to a, an auto parts store, that's once again, why you need

00:10:40.800 rockauto.com. And you have it fortunately at your desk, you carry it around in your pocket. It's as

00:10:46.200 easy as that. Rockauto.com is everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps,

00:10:50.420 motor oil, even new carpet, whether it's for your classic or daily driver, get everything you need

00:10:55.300 in a few easy clicks to deliver, deliver directly to your door. Rockauto.com always offers the lowest

00:11:00.020 prices possible rather than change changing prices based on what the market will bear. Like a lot of

00:11:05.860 industries do. That's not happening here. It's the same price for everyone. Why would you choose to

00:11:11.200 spend 30%, 50%, 100% more for the exact same item that you can get, you know, on online? Why would

00:11:20.560 you go into a store to pay more, spend more time and everything else? Now, rockauto.com also I should

00:11:25.760 mention is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years. And I think especially

00:11:30.920 these days we should all want to support small businesses, family businesses. And that's just,

00:11:37.460 you had another reason to go check out rockauto.com. Go to rockauto.com right now, see all the parts

00:11:42.220 available for your car or truck, write Walsh in there, how did you hear about us box so that they

00:11:46.540 know that we sent you. So we make these calculations all the time about risk versus reward. A few days ago,

00:11:56.120 I was inside and I had to run outside suddenly and rescue my son who had been, he had been outside

00:12:03.600 maybe for three minutes. But if you know, if you have kids, you know that it doesn't take them long

00:12:09.300 to get themselves into trouble. So in the span of three minutes, he had got himself stuck about 20

00:12:14.860 feet up in a tree, perched on a precariously thin branch. And as I went up and even though the

00:12:22.820 branches were pretty even thinner for me, you know, of course I was fortunately able to get up and bring

00:12:27.300 him down. Now, had I not gotten there in time or had his sister not had the wherewithal and the

00:12:34.020 presence of mind to come and get me like she did, he might've fallen. And who knows what happens when

00:12:40.100 a kid falls 20 feet out of a tree. If he were to fall on his head, break his neck, he would have died.

00:12:47.280 Does that mean that I'll never let my son play outside in our yard unattended ever again?

00:12:52.500 No. It would certainly make him safer if I kept him locked inside under our watchful eyes at all

00:12:59.800 times. But we as parents have decided that the risk, not a substantial risk, but also not entirely

00:13:07.220 unsubstantial, is a price worth paying in order to give our children a little bit of freedom and a

00:13:13.600 chance to have some fun and be normal children. Every time you open your front door and you tell your kids

00:13:18.840 go play, there's a risk. And what you're saying, even if you don't say it out loud, hopefully you

00:13:23.780 don't, is that the risk of bodily injury or death that is inherent in them going outside to play is

00:13:31.780 worth it for the benefit of them simply being children and having some fun. Now, God forbid, if my

00:13:40.940 son did tumble off that branch, I'm sure I would have wished that I had kept him chained to me at all

00:13:46.440 times. And if a family member ever dies in a car accident, I would wish that all cars had vanished

00:13:52.600 from the earth before that happened. And if my parents were to die of the coronavirus, I would probably

00:13:57.840 wish that the entire economy had been burned to the ground and millions had made had been made

00:14:02.580 destitute to save them. In fact, someone said to me yesterday, well, how would you feel if this was your

00:14:06.360 child who had coronavirus? And what if your child died of coronavirus? Well, if this is my child, I yeah, I

00:14:11.660 would send the entire world into a Great Depression. I would make you homeless and all your kids 0.93

00:14:15.200 homeless probably to save my own child. That's what I would do for my own child. But in my grief and my

00:14:22.840 longing, would I be looking at these issues more rationally and ethically or less? The question is,

00:14:30.760 should I approach life at all times with the mentality of a grief stricken man desperate to

00:14:36.660 preserve his loved one's lives at any and all costs, no matter what? Is that how I should always

00:14:44.160 approach things? Is that how we should approach things? Or should we allow for certain risks?

00:14:50.540 Even risks that we know we'd probably regret if tragedy were to strike. Now, the coronavirus itself

00:14:57.580 is not like car accidents. It's not like a boy stuck in a tree. But the ethical question is essentially

00:15:03.640 the same. And this is what the point I think Trump was trying to make. Our cars and the positive impact

00:15:10.380 they have on our lives, we say, even if we don't say it, we still say, are worth the 10 million people

00:15:18.940 who will die in them or because of them across the globe over the next decade. 10 million.

00:15:25.220 Our children's fun and freedom is worth the risk to their physical health that must inevitably

00:15:30.580 accompany it. Now, the balance could tip the other way. Obviously, there are many fun things that my

00:15:36.340 kids want to do that I don't let them do because the risk is too much. And maybe if enough people

00:15:42.780 died in cars, I don't know, maybe if, say, 5 million were perishing on our highways just in this country

00:15:48.120 alone every single year, maybe we really would consider banning them. I don't know. There is a

00:15:52.940 line somewhere. I don't know where exactly. I don't think you do either. But apparently, when it comes to

00:15:57.820 cars, wherever that line is, it is comfortably above the 35,000 dead body threshold. That's not enough to

00:16:05.240 make us even consider banning cars. So how many people have to die before we even talk about it?

00:16:11.800 100,000? A million? I don't know. So then what about the coronavirus? If our cars are worth 35,000 dead,

00:16:23.620 what is our economy worth? What is our way of life worth? If the benefit of having heavy chunks of metal

00:16:31.540 flying around at terrifying speeds outweighs the substantial downside, how do we weigh our entire

00:16:37.660 economy against the risk of an out-of-control viral outbreak? What if I were to say right now

00:16:46.240 that I think 35,000 dead people from the coronavirus is a price worth paying to save our economy? What if I

00:16:55.560 were to say, let's open the economy up? And where's my line? I think as long as we keep the death toll

00:17:02.100 around 35,000, I'm okay with that. Now, yes, it may kill many more than that. It may kill fewer. That's

00:17:08.160 not the point right now. I'm saying if I were to say that, you would probably call me a monster.

00:17:15.060 You would say, you're willing to have 35,000 people die just for the economy?

00:17:24.960 Yet, while calling me a monster, you have already signed on to that price just for the minivan in

00:17:33.880 your driveway. You have already made that calculation and said, yes, that is a price I think we should

00:17:41.120 pay. 35,000 dead people on our highways, fine. Now, could the minivan really be worth more by itself

00:17:48.640 than the minivan combined with your house, your job, your food, your retirement savings, everything else

00:17:54.300 that would be put on the line during an economic crash if these shutdowns were to last for months

00:17:59.040 on end, as some government officials seem to indicate they will? Clearly not. We, in fact, it turns out,

00:18:06.600 despite what people like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo are saying, we should not destroy the economy

00:18:15.040 and embrace destitution just to save one life. We won't even commit to riding our bikes to work for

00:18:22.620 that. So what would the economy's destruction be worth? Would its destruction be worth it to save

00:18:32.180 50,000 lives? 100,000? A million? I don't know the answer. But this is the question we're asking

00:18:41.920 and the conversation we have to have, as unsavory as it seems.

00:18:50.280 And once again, I don't know the answer. I've struggled with this, as you know, over these weeks.

00:18:55.980 But it should be noted, as President Trump already did, that the people appalled by this

00:19:02.080 conversation, the people say, how dare you even think in these terms? They are participating in

00:19:08.600 the conversation, whether they like it or not. Every time they drive to the grocery store,

00:19:13.380 they take part in the dialogue, even if they don't give their answers out loud.

00:19:18.380 And that is the question. We are facing, as I've been saying, two potential worst-case scenarios

00:19:28.900 on one side or the other. We've got the worst-case scenario of the coronavirus killing many thousands

00:19:35.300 or even millions of people, depending on who you listen to. Worst case on the other end of the

00:19:40.440 spectrum, if these shutdowns go on too long. And there are some who say maybe they've already

00:19:45.420 gone on too long, as far as the economy is concerned. Maybe the damage is already irrevocable.

00:19:49.920 I don't know. But on the other end of the spectrum, worst-case scenario is an economic crash

00:19:57.920 unlike anything we have ever seen, a Great Depression that dwarfs the last one, millions destitute,

00:20:04.060 looting, rioting, and everything else. That is, I'm not saying that's going to happen.

00:20:08.300 It could happen. It is a worst-case scenario. And what we're doing is we're balancing these two

00:20:14.060 worst-case scenarios. And we're saying, OK, if we try to avoid this worst-case scenario over here

00:20:21.140 of the economic crash, yes, that means we get back to work and we take certain precautions,

00:20:27.220 but still there's a risk of more people dying from the coronavirus. Well, how many dead makes

00:20:32.620 it worth it to stave off the economic crash? That's the question. The thing is, if you say,

00:20:39.120 no, no, no, we can't do that. Let's just stay locked down as long as we need to, well, then

00:20:43.820 you're saying that this worst-case scenario of the economic crash is a price you're willing to pay.

00:20:50.860 And so I could ask you, how many destitute families are you willing to accept? How many would make it 1.00

00:20:58.400 worth it to you? Or how many would make it so that it's not worth it anymore? Are you willing to have

00:21:04.220 50 million destitute families out on the street not able to feed their kids in order to keep these 0.75

00:21:09.340 lockdowns going? Is that too much? OK, well, then 10 million? I mean, where's your line?

00:21:16.800 I don't think we can hide from this question. And I think that's what President Trump was trying to

00:21:23.880 say. All right, let's go to your news headlines before we do. If you haven't had a chance yet to

00:21:30.240 see some of our new content called All Access Live, you should head over to dailywire.com,

00:21:34.820 check it out. Jeremy Boring and Ben Shapiro kicked it off last week, and then we all did live streams

00:21:38.960 each day over at dailywire.com. And we will continue all of this week at 8 p.m., 5 p.m. Pacific.

00:21:45.460 All Access Live is a lot more relaxed than a normal programming, you know, the normal shows and

00:21:50.600 stuff that we do. It's less focused on bringing you news and information. It's more of a conversation.

00:21:54.320 We're sitting there talking to you. And we've been getting a lot of amazing messages from our

00:21:59.460 Daily Wire community during these trying times. And we could see they're coming from a positive

00:22:03.500 and heartfelt place. And I think that this live stream then is not only good for the viewers,

00:22:08.460 but it's good for us. It's therapeutic for us as well to be able to have these conversations.

00:22:12.320 So this is a show intended for our All Access members. But during this national emergency and

00:22:17.860 time of isolation, we've opened it up to all of our members and in doing so accelerated the launch.

00:22:22.780 So please let us know what you think of it. And if you're around at 8 p.m. Eastern,

00:22:27.380 5 p.m. Pacific tonight, then tune in. I believe it'll be me tonight doing the All Access show.

00:22:34.080 So last time, last week, I did conclude our All Access show by playing a musical number on my banjo.

00:22:43.840 Who knows what will happen today? I might have to even bust out the kazoo because I am a kazoo expert.

00:22:49.740 All right, let's go to your headlines. Number one, the Senate and White House have agreed to a

00:22:53.460 $2 trillion stimulus package. There's a lot in the bill, obviously. But focusing on what I think is

00:22:58.740 the most important thing, here's a reminder, reading from CNN, of how the checks to individual

00:23:05.120 Americans will work under this plan. It says, under the plan, as it was being negotiated,

00:23:09.340 individuals who earn $75,000 in adjusted gross income or less would get direct payments of $1,200

00:23:14.380 each, with married couples earning up to $150,000, receiving $2,400 and an additional $500 per each

00:23:22.000 child. The payment would scale down by income, phasing out entirely at $99,000 for singles

00:23:26.340 and $198,000 for couples without children. So that's the plan, at least on the individual

00:23:35.020 check piece of it. This, to me, I'm sorry, is a joke. $2 trillion spent, and you're giving $1,200

00:23:43.920 to some Americans, which for most will not even be enough to come close to covering the bills,

00:23:50.100 and you're excluding millions of American families because they made, according to the government,

00:23:54.660 too much money two years ago. What if they make less money now? Well, they're out of luck.

00:24:01.380 And what if they earn over the threshold now, but their family business has been destroyed?

00:24:06.580 Or they live in a high cost of living area, and so even with that income level, they're still

00:24:12.220 basically living paycheck to paycheck. What if a thousand other scenarios? Doesn't matter. No help

00:24:17.900 for you. That's what the government says. By the way, here's a question. Is this money going to be

00:24:22.460 taxed? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question. I suspect that it will be counted

00:24:28.800 as income, and so it will be taxed. So in that case, they're going to send you back your own money,

00:24:35.060 which is what these stimulus checks are. It's your money. They're giving it back to you,

00:24:38.200 and then they're going to tax you on it. So they give you the check, and then at tax time next year,

00:24:44.220 they come back around and they say, hey, did you happen to get any checks sent to you in addition

00:24:49.980 to your regular paychecks? I mean, I don't know. Did you get anything else? Because, oh yeah, I did.

00:24:55.940 I got a stimulus check. Oh, cool. Well, we're just going to need a chunk of that. We're going to need

00:24:59.340 just a little chunk of that. But you gave it to me in the first place. Oh, did we? I forgot all about

00:25:05.920 that. Anyway, so about that chunk, just a little chunk is what we're going to need. Meanwhile, the

00:25:11.700 White House is now telling us that the total stimulus effort, the total thing, including this

00:25:17.200 bill and other measures, will total six trillion dollars. Six trillion dollars. Just to give you an

00:25:25.360 idea of how much money that is. If you were to stack it in one dollar bills, it would reach over

00:25:31.620 400,000 miles into the sky. Enough to hit the moon. You could hit the moon, and then you'd have

00:25:39.280 so much left over on the moon, you could build another stack going back to Earth, which is good

00:25:44.100 because then you're not stuck on the moon. You could climb that stack. As far as the physics and

00:25:48.000 everything, I'm not sure how much that would work. But still, that's the amount of money we're

00:25:52.360 dealing with. It is a lot of money, to put it mildly. I wonder, are we getting to the point

00:25:58.160 where you might as well just give everybody a million dollars? Spend 327 trillion dollars,

00:26:05.740 give everybody a million bucks. Because at what point does it not matter anymore? Six trillion

00:26:10.740 dollars is already more money than actually exists on Earth as it is. So when you get to the point

00:26:18.440 where you're spending more money than exists on planet Earth, what, why, why even, what's the

00:26:25.140 difference? Just, you know, might as well make it 300 trillion, a quadrillion, you know, whatever.

00:26:33.240 I don't, I think, I'm in favor of the stimulus checks to America, because I actually think it 0.98

00:26:38.160 should be more. But at the same time, with these shutdowns continuing now, for many more weeks,

00:26:44.720 it seems like, so we're closing up businesses, decimating the economy, the government spending

00:26:51.200 six trillion dollars, passing that bill off on future generations. It, we've got a recipe here

00:26:59.380 for something that is not good economically. Number two, Joe Biden has basically disappeared

00:27:06.780 over the last week. Rather than, rather than getting out there, maybe not out there, you can't do that,

00:27:11.440 but at least on TV, being seen, making his case, trying to show how he would lead in a situation like

00:27:18.220 this. He's been like locked in a basement somewhere. They're keeping him out of sight

00:27:21.720 until the last couple of days. And now he's finally showing up again. We're seeing him on TV. And I

00:27:27.800 think based on his appearances, we're starting to see why they were hiding him in the first place.

00:27:35.060 So let's, let's watch this. Here's just one, one example. Watch this.

00:27:39.080 In Hot Topics, we talked about Trump saying the government would reassess the recommended period

00:27:44.240 for keeping businesses shut and people at home. Are you at all concerned, as Trump said,

00:27:49.660 that we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself?

00:27:53.660 We have to take care of the cure. That will make the problem worse no matter what.

00:27:58.860 We have to take care of the cure. That will make the problem worse no matter what.

00:28:04.980 Take care of the cure. Taking care of the cure will make the problem worse no matter what.

00:28:16.900 But what does taking care of the cure mean? It sounds good. It sounds like you want to,

00:28:24.440 okay, I'm taking care of the cure. Hey, I'm taking care of that cure.

00:28:28.520 Like if somebody's saying that, what they mean is they're going to cure it, right?

00:28:31.100 Whatever the problem is. And so you're saying that's going to make the problem worse.

00:28:34.800 Curing the problem will make it worse. I don't, I don't get it. I'm, I'm not even trying to be

00:28:40.100 funny. I really don't even understand. I don't understand what he's even driving at.

00:28:44.000 This isn't just stumbling over your words. This is a apparently totally nonsensical statement.

00:28:52.740 And then Nancy Pelosi yesterday also had her own Joe Biden moment. Listen to this.

00:28:57.560 Well, I do think that there is a whole concern in our country that if we're giving tens of billions

00:29:03.580 of dollars to the airlines, that we could at least have a shared value about what, what happens to

00:29:09.940 the environment. But that is a, you know, that is an excuse, not a reason for Senator McConnell to go

00:29:17.440 forward. Some of the other issues like not fully extending family medically, not funding food stamps.

00:29:24.040 So I hope that will all change in the next few hours, but there are issues that are central to

00:29:29.500 the wellbeing of America. There is a whole concern in our country that if we're giving tens of billions

00:29:34.840 of dollars to the airlines, that we could at least have a shared value about what happens to the

00:29:39.760 environment, have a shared value about what happens to the environment. We have a shared value.

00:29:49.300 I don't understand what that means either. I don't, I don't understand it. I don't know what

00:29:54.980 these people are talking about, but the best and brightest right here that we have the best and

00:29:59.000 brightest leading the way, but that makes me feel better in these, in these, in these times dealing

00:30:05.160 with one of the, one of the great crises that we've ever faced as a nation. And with that, and by that,

00:30:11.300 I mean also the economic devastation that they're causing right now, the whole thing, right?

00:30:14.940 But it's just good to know that these are the people who are making decisions. All right. Number

00:30:20.460 three, interesting report in the Daily Wire right now by Amanda Presta-Giacomo. She writes,

00:30:26.020 government policy and guidance crafted in an effort to flatten the curve of coronavirus related deaths

00:30:30.740 has largely been based upon an Imperial College London model headed by Professor Neil Ferguson.

00:30:36.140 The terrifying model shows that as many as 2.2 million Americans could perish from the virus if

00:30:40.620 no action is taken peaking in June. However, that model is likely highly flawed. Oxford

00:30:46.600 epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta writes, Professor Gupta led a team of researchers at Oxford University

00:30:53.840 in a modeling study, which suggests that the virus has been invisibly spreading for at least a month

00:30:58.340 earlier than suspected, concluding that as many as half of the people in the UK have already been

00:31:03.640 infected by COVID-19. If this is the case, fewer than one in a thousand who've been infected with

00:31:08.480 COVID-19 become sick enough to need hospitalization, leaving the vast majority with mild cases or free

00:31:14.200 of symptoms. With so many in the UK and potentially United States presumably infected, so-called herd

00:31:19.040 immunity could kick into effect, dramatically limiting the number of deaths modeled by Ferguson

00:31:23.560 and company. The Financial Times explains, the Oxford study is based on what is known as a

00:31:29.600 susceptibility infected recovery model, that old canard, of COVID-19 built up from case and death

00:31:38.420 reports from the UK and Italy. The researchers made what they argue as the most plausible assumptions

00:31:43.040 about the behavior of the virus. The report continues, the modeling that brings back into focus

00:31:47.580 herd immunity, the idea that the virus will stop spreading when enough people have become resistant

00:31:52.260 to it because they've already become infected.

00:31:53.940 Okay, that's your positive side of things. Interesting perspective there. Number four, we'll go to, we'll go

00:32:02.680 from, we'll try to keep a balance here, right? So we've got the positive, we'll go to the negative, nice balance

00:32:07.740 between comforting and terrifying. Reading from the Daily Mail, it says an intensive care specialist has described

00:32:14.500 how one person with coronavirus could infect up to 59,000 others as the virus is more than twice as infectious

00:32:21.360 as the flu. And we're not just talking about people on spring break here. This is Dr. Hugh Montgomery,

00:32:26.260 a professor of intensive care medicine at University College London, explained how the virus could be passed

00:32:31.880 from one person to thousands as he calls on Britons to heed advice on social distancing. He says,

00:32:39.920 normal flu, if I get that, I'm going to infect on average about 1.3 or 1.4 people if there was such a division.

00:32:45.480 If those 1.3 or 1.4 people give it to the next lot, that's the second time it gets passed on. By the time

00:32:51.920 that's happened 10 times, I've been responsible for about 14 cases of the flu. Dr. Montgomery went on to

00:32:58.160 illustrate how coronavirus is far more infectious than the common flu, with one person potentially

00:33:02.320 infecting 59,000 others under the same circumstances, just based on the exponential way that these things

00:33:09.420 are passed on. So there's the negative side of it as well. Two perspectives. I'm not going to tell you

00:33:16.440 which one to believe because I have no idea. Number five, an interesting notice on the website for

00:33:22.960 Planned Parenthood Keystone. So that's Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania, essentially. And if you

00:33:28.080 go to the website, this is the notice that is posted there right now. It says, to ensure the health and

00:33:34.340 safety of our patients, staff, and community, Planned Parenthood Keystone has temporarily closed all of its

00:33:38.920 health care, all of its health centers, quote unquote, I'm adding the scare quotes, for family

00:33:43.940 planning visits effective March 23rd, 2020. At this time, Planned Parenthood Keystone is serving

00:33:50.280 patients in Allentown, Wilkes-Barre, Warminster, Reading, York, and Harrisburg for abortion services only.

00:33:59.440 Birth control starts and renewals, depot shots, emergency contraception, UTI treatments,

00:34:03.840 vaginitis, rash, or legion, and STI treatments will be available via telehealth very soon.

00:34:10.020 Okay. That's interesting, I think, because we're told that abortion is only, what do they say? They

00:34:20.640 say it's 3% of what a Planned Parenthood does. They tell us, especially when we're talking about the

00:34:26.420 funding of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood gets $500 million a year in tax funding,

00:34:31.180 uh, in, uh, in, in welfare checks, basically from sugar daddy government. And, but we're told that's

00:34:38.300 okay because Planned Parenthood, they hardly do any abortions. It's only 3% of what they do, 1.00

00:34:43.260 right? No, no, but yeah, yeah. It, it, it adds up to 330,000 abortions, which means 330,000 dead

00:34:50.220 children every single year, but it's only 3%. It's basically nothing. They, they, they hardly do any

00:34:54.940 abortions. That's the argument, the spin, the propaganda that we're told. But yet here we are

00:35:02.160 and they're shutting everything down. And supposedly this is a, a facility that is a health

00:35:08.920 facility. And you would think that's pretty essential. And they do all kinds of really

00:35:14.140 important, essential health related things. And yet, at least in their physical facilities,

00:35:20.940 they're not offering any of that, but abortions. If it's only 3% of what they do, and it's not even

00:35:28.820 that important to their overall business model, as we're told, then why would they stop doing

00:35:33.740 everything but that? I mean, if you're a business and you've got to cut things back,

00:35:40.580 would you, would you narrow things down to only 3% of your business, the 3% that's so much less

00:35:46.440 important than everything else you do? I mean, if anything, shouldn't they stop doing abortions 0.99

00:35:52.060 and continue all of the other allegedly essential healthcare practices that they, that they perform?

00:35:59.040 The services they provide? No, but it said they stopped doing all of that and they only do the

00:36:04.880 abortions. It would seem like, call me crazy, but it would seem like, uh, the reason they're only doing

00:36:10.900 the abortions is because actually that's really all they basically do, or that, that is at a minimum,

00:36:16.520 that is actually the, the point of their organization and everything else is peripheral.

00:36:22.180 Everything else is just an add on that they tack on at the end. And so they can stop doing all of

00:36:27.540 that, but they're still going to do the abortions. They keep the money coming in and their business is

00:36:32.040 still alive and humming and going right along. That's how it would seem to me. All right, let's go to

00:36:37.780 your daily cancellation. Today, we're canceling Marine Faruqi, who is a feminist lawmaker in 1.00

00:36:43.580 Australia. Now you knew, you just knew the feminists would try to make coronavirus about 1.00

00:36:48.420 themselves. You knew they would because everything is about them. They can't help it. And here we are.

00:36:53.060 Let us not forget that COVID-19 is a gendered crisis. Nurses, nurse aides, teachers, child carers, 0.75

00:37:01.900 and early childhood educators, aged care workers and cleaners are mostly women. They are on the 0.99

00:37:08.180 front line of this public health crisis and carry a disproportionate risk of being exposed to the

00:37:14.040 virus. Let's also not forget that not all homes are safe places. Quarantine or self-isolation at

00:37:20.840 home will put women and children at risk. Women's advocates and domestic violence experts are warning

00:37:27.640 us that domestic abuse increases during times of crisis. And I'm terribly worried that these

00:37:33.120 warnings have not been heeded by this government that has long resisted adequate funding for the

00:37:38.500 needed resources and refugees. A gendered crisis, she says, because everything is gendered in the 1.00

00:37:44.200 adult brain of a feminist, even as they say that gender is essentially a social fiction, like I said, 1.00

00:37:49.500 adult brain. But notice a few things, a few things. First, she says nurses, nurse aides,

00:37:56.040 et cetera, are mostly women. You notice who she left out? Doctors, surgeons. They also, I would argue, 1.00

00:38:06.180 are on the front lines of this thing. But what about them? Well, they're not mentioned because

00:38:11.860 they don't count because they're mostly men. So we're going to forget about them. But secondly,

00:38:16.900 if the coronavirus is picking on one gender especially more than the other, it's definitely men

00:38:23.080 who are the primary victim. The vast majority of deaths from the virus are male. Some figures suggest

00:38:30.100 that it's around 70%, that the death rate is 70% male. At least that's the case in Italy. And 1.00

00:38:37.800 across the board, it's certainly a majority of cases, of the most severe cases, the fatal cases,

00:38:43.340 are male. Yet she's trying to make it into a thing that's victimizing women the most. 1.00

00:38:49.900 This just shows you how feminism works. This feminist was able to take a disease that mostly 1.00

00:38:55.860 kills men and turn it into a crisis that mostly affects women. I mean, it's extraordinary. Next 1.00

00:39:01.940 thing you know, she's going to be telling us that prostate cancer is mainly a crisis affecting women.

00:39:07.200 This is the way it goes, though. When you buy into a victim narrative,

00:39:11.300 and that's the way you look at life, and the narrative is that women are victims and men are not,

00:39:17.960 well, then every situation has to be seen through that lens, which leads to manifest absurdities like

00:39:23.660 this. So, Ms. Faruqi, you are canceled for that reason. Now, let's go to emails. We have a couple

00:39:31.760 emails here I wanted to get through as we wrap the show up. This, and you become a Daily Wire member,

00:39:37.300 you could send emails to the mailbag. This is from James, says, Dear Matt, thank you for your coverage

00:39:42.660 of the Chinese virus over the last few days. I'm tired of seeing the world brought to its knees

00:39:47.480 over a cold. You seem like you were panicked a few days ago, but have settled down. That's great.

00:39:54.500 Keep it up. See, this is exactly the wrong way of looking at this, James. I hate to disappoint you.

00:40:01.880 The virus is not just a cold. It's a very serious disease, highly contagious, high levels of

00:40:11.040 hospitalization, deadlier than the flu. These are all facts, right? So, and, well, I guess I should

00:40:21.000 amend that. We talk about the levels of hospitalization. As I just read during the

00:40:25.660 headlines, we actually, we don't know exactly what the actual rate is when you compare hospitalization

00:40:29.880 rate to the number of affected because we don't know how many people are affected, but we do know

00:40:33.840 that lots of people are going to the hospital. We can just put it that way, okay? And you can look

00:40:37.860 at what's happening in New York right now. We see what's happening in other countries. Now, so those

00:40:42.800 are facts. Does that mean that we should shut the economy down indefinitely? No, I don't think so,

00:40:49.280 as I've argued, because, and I'm trying to make this very clear. I'm not saying that we shouldn't

00:40:56.560 shut the economy down or that we should get the economy going again soon because the virus isn't

00:41:01.620 a big deal. That's not my argument. That has never been my argument. What I'm saying is I'm afraid

00:41:08.100 that the cost is too great to bear, and it might not even achieve much anyway when it comes to stopping

00:41:14.220 or slowing the virus. What if it, you know, what if the virus continues as it seems to be doing in

00:41:19.960 places like New York? It continues to do, continues to spread rapidly, and we stay locked down. We

00:41:27.220 destroy the economy. So now we have a destroyed economy, and we've still got the virus to deal

00:41:31.860 with. Or, and if we're not staying locked down until there's a vaccine a year from now, presumably

00:41:38.700 even the most extreme people in favor of a lockdown would agree that eventually we have to start back up

00:41:45.640 again. And what if we start back up again and the virus comes back with a vengeance? Now we've got

00:41:51.820 a destroyed economy and the virus, and we're less capable of dealing with all of these things

00:41:55.580 for me come to bear in analyzing this. And I'm saying that destroying the economy is a mistake

00:42:04.180 and it won't be worth it because of the human cost. So I believe sooner rather than later,

00:42:12.860 we need to get people back to work so they can feed their families while taking a number of

00:42:16.980 precautions, instituting measures that I've outlined over the last few days. And these are not measures

00:42:21.900 that I came up with. This is not, I'm not the first one to think of these, but there are a number

00:42:25.900 of things we could do. We could open the economy while still taking a number of measures, including if

00:42:32.900 you're in favor of more draconian measures by the government, there are draconian things you could do

00:42:37.800 even while getting the economy going, such as, for example, mandatory mask laws for everybody that

00:42:43.920 goes out in public. Now, I'm not saying I'd be in favor of that. I don't know how you need to

00:42:49.020 produce a hell of a lot more masks in order to do it. I think we could do that. I don't know how you

00:42:52.820 would enforce it. Would people actually follow it? These are all questions. But then you have the

00:42:57.140 same problem with a shutdown. How do you enforce that, especially as weeks go by and people are sick of

00:43:01.200 it? How do you enforce it? Are people going to follow it? I think at a certain point they won't

00:43:05.260 anymore, so you still have that issue. But you could do. Now, as far as masks go, I would be more

00:43:11.500 in favor of being more targeted, where maybe certain industries it's required that you have masks, at

00:43:17.080 least for a time. But then there are many other things that you do, too. You quarantine the nursing

00:43:21.660 homes. People that are especially vulnerable, you keep them home. Quarantine the elderly. And anyone 1.00

00:43:27.900 who's in that category but needs a paycheck to survive, well, we can continue to support them.

00:43:32.840 And we could be more targeted in our approach that way. So what I'm suggesting is just a more

00:43:38.160 targeted approach at the virus while trying to keep the economy going as much as possible to stave

00:43:43.980 off a depression and the destitution and suffering that will come from that.

00:43:49.460 The point is, we cannot take the extreme of let's keep everything locked down for six months.

00:43:55.380 We can't go with that extreme. But we also can't go to the other extreme that you're at and say this

00:44:00.700 is just a cold, because that's not the case either. So, you know, I don't know the solution.

00:44:07.100 Nobody does. I don't want thousands of people to die from this virus. I also don't want our economy

00:44:11.760 to be destroyed and families to be destitute. There's got to be a path that navigates those

00:44:16.980 extremes. Or maybe there isn't. I say there has to be. There's got to be. But there doesn't have to

00:44:22.340 be. It's possible that there is no path. There is no good answer. But maybe there is.

00:44:27.880 And we have to look for it. Right now, we've bought in totally to shut everything down.

00:44:34.760 Great Depression be damned. I'm saying, let's not do that. Let's actually look at all of our options

00:44:39.680 and try to be a little bit more creative in the way we deal with this.

00:44:44.880 All right. Let's go to Anna says, hi, Matt. Thought I'd change the discussion from the coronavirus to

00:44:50.660 something else. Thank God. What is your take on soulmates? Is your wife your soulmate? Do we all

00:44:56.120 have one person out there who is made for us? It's a good question. And Anna, I do believe in

00:45:01.360 soulmates. Soulmates would be two people who meet on a foot fetish website.

00:45:10.880 Pausing for laughter. So I apologize for that. But it is a pretty good pun.

00:45:15.180 You have to admit. That's a good pun. Anyway, the answer is no, I don't believe in soulmates.

00:45:20.420 At least not in the case of one individual who's out there in the world, who's the right person for

00:45:26.320 you and is waiting for you to find them. I don't believe in that. Is my wife my soulmate? Yes.

00:45:34.240 Because we're married and we chose to become soulmates. That was a choice we made.

00:45:39.980 Which to me makes it even more meaningful. It wasn't like this was written in the stars. And so I had to

00:45:46.100 end up with my wife and we're sort of slaves of destiny or whatever. That's not how I see it. I see

00:45:53.940 it as we both started our lives in different states, hundreds of miles apart. And we lived our

00:46:02.680 lives and made choices and went this way and that. And there were a million different choices we could

00:46:07.740 have made that would have taken us in different directions. We could have made those choices. We

00:46:11.180 didn't. There were other people we could have ended up with, but we didn't make that choice

00:46:15.980 either. And then we met each other. We made a choice to be together. And because of that choice

00:46:21.000 and that free choice, I think it makes it so much more meaningful. And once you make the choice,

00:46:31.120 now you're committed. You've made an oath before God and now you are soulmates. So I wasn't my wife's

00:46:39.660 soulmate when I met her. I was her soulmate when I said I do and when she said I do.

00:46:45.980 I think there's another thing, though, about this soulmate thing. I think there's a great danger

00:46:49.560 in this mentality, actually. And we see it play out in society over and over again.

00:46:54.580 I'll tell you what the danger is. If you believe that there are soulmates, there's someone out there

00:47:00.220 that's made for you ahead of time and all you have to do is go find them. First of all, with all

00:47:06.000 these quarantines, that's going to be very difficult to do. But more importantly, well, what if you meet

00:47:12.780 somebody and you think they're your soulmate and you marry them and then you discover that, oh,

00:47:20.500 you know, I don't think they are my soulmate? And then you go to your job and you have a co-worker

00:47:24.780 and you say, oh, I think this is my soulmate. And that's how marriages are destroyed. 0.98

00:47:31.280 And invariably what happens is the person who says that, oh, you know, I made the wrong choice. I just

00:47:35.500 met the right person. I'm going to leave this person, my spouse in the dust. Even if I have kids,

00:47:40.400 I'm going to leave them in the dust too. I'm going to go with my real soulmate. Invariably,

00:47:43.740 what do they find out? They find out that, oh, no, no, that person is not my soulmate either.

00:47:47.400 I'll have to keep looking. Five marriages later, you know, destroyed families, destroyed lives. 0.96

00:47:53.800 That's where the soulmate thing takes you, I think. But if it's true that there are soulmates and that

00:47:59.400 there is one person out there who's made for you, destined for you, then it is true that you could end

00:48:04.500 up with the wrong person. And then you could meet some other person who's the right person.

00:48:10.300 And by this way of thinking, then if you had some way of knowing that this other person is your soulmate,

00:48:17.140 then it would, I guess, be right to leave your spouse for this other person. Because this person

00:48:22.020 was made for you. This is who God or the universe or whoever intended for you. But that can't be the

00:48:30.180 case. You know, it can't be that we're destined to leave a person who we made an undying vow and

00:48:38.100 commitment to. It just, it can't be. And I don't think that's the case. So your soulmate is the person

00:48:47.360 who you choose to be your soulmate, as long as they choose you as well. But thank you for that

00:48:54.060 question. That was a nice little break from the coronavirus madness, which we will get back to

00:48:59.680 tomorrow, I'm sure. And thanks, everybody, for watching. Stay safe out there. Godspeed.

00:49:09.120 If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the

00:49:12.920 word, please give us a five-star review. Tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on

00:49:17.020 Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. Also, be sure to check out

00:49:21.680 the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew

00:49:25.940 Klavan Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer

00:49:31.060 Jeremy Boring, supervising producer Mathis Glover, supervising producer Robert Sterling, technical

00:49:36.680 producer Austin Stevens, editor Danny D'Amico, audio mixer Robin Fenderson. The Matt Wall Show is a

00:49:43.220 Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020. If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by

00:49:49.140 the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to

00:49:53.840 The Ben Shapiro Show. We'll get a whole lot of that and much more. See you there.

The Matt Walsh Show - March 25, 2020

Ep. 452 - The Media Misses Trump's Point, Episode 98,618,012

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript