Ep. 1608 - The New York Times Attacked Me In The Dumbest Way
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
185.2406
Summary
With just 4 days to go before election day, the New York Times is officially campaigning to get your favorite cigar salesman s podcast kicked off YouTube, and is also trying to get at least 8 other conservative shows kicked off on YouTube.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
It's back. One last chance. This time, it's more important than ever. Get 47% off your new Daily
00:00:05.120
Wire Plus annual membership with code FITE. Then make sure you're with us on election night. Our
00:00:08.860
full coverage starts at 6 p.m. Eastern. We'll be live all night until the winner is declared,
00:00:12.920
giving real coverage in real time on the night. It really matters. Dailywire.com slash subscribe.
00:00:17.380
Use code FITE for 47% off your new Daily Wire Plus membership. Be here to watch history unfold
00:00:24.680
live on Tuesday. November 5th. The night America's fate is decided. As the final votes are counted and
00:00:33.920
a nation waits for the outcome, join us to break down the live election results as only Ben Shapiro,
00:00:39.460
Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, and Jeremy Borek. And with special guests appearing
00:00:44.960
live in studio, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Dennis Prager, and Spencer Clayton. Daily Wire,
00:00:51.120
election night 2024. Get real-time results and exclusive insights from the most trusted names
00:00:57.580
in conservative media. This is more than an election. It's history in the making. Join
00:01:03.160
the Daily Wire as each vote is counted, each state called, and each race decided.
00:01:11.720
With just four days to go before election day, the New York Times is officially campaigning to get
00:01:18.500
your favorite cigar salesman's podcast kicked off YouTube. They're also campaigning to get at least
00:01:25.400
eight other conservative shows kicked off YouTube. I think this means the Times has a hunch about who's
00:01:33.020
going to win the election. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show.
00:01:48.500
Welcome back to the show. J.D. Vance does Joe Rogan's show over three hours, well over three hours. We
00:02:01.540
have the highlights. There's so much more to say. First, though, text Knowles to 989898. We have a big
00:02:07.180
election coming up. There's a lot at stake. Four years of a conservative presidency will not be enough
00:02:12.040
to turn the tide on our $35 trillion national debt. You don't have much control over the election's
00:02:17.180
outcome. You can protect your savings by diversifying now into gold from my friends at Birch Gold.
00:02:22.500
That's right. For millennia, gold has stood firm in the face of greedy governments, economic upheavals,
00:02:27.600
and global strife. It can protect you now. Birch Gold will help you convert an IRA or 401k into an
00:02:32.740
IRA in physical gold. The best news doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket. I have a decent chunk of
00:02:39.480
my portfolio in gold, and I'll tell you, I'm pretty happy about that, especially right now.
00:02:43.100
Things are looking pretty good. Gold at all-time highs. Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898. Get
00:02:48.320
your free info kit on gold, and then diversify, especially as we head into the election. People
00:02:53.000
are looking at some economic turmoil, and it's when they look to diversify. As the exclusive gold
00:02:58.000
partner of The Daily Wire for eight years, you can trust Birch Gold, as I do, to protect your
00:03:02.420
savings. Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898 today. Speaking of luxurious things, I also have to tell you
00:03:11.220
about these smoking jackets. You can see, if you're watching the show right now, you can see
00:03:15.140
I'm wearing the black smoking jacket. A couple days ago, Mayflower rolled out a project we'd been
00:03:20.380
working on for about six months. That is a super premium smoking jacket made in partnership with
00:03:26.000
Shepherds, a company owned in part by Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker. This jacket uses the finest
00:03:33.780
mills velvet in all of Italy. It has working sleeve buttonholes. It's customized to your
00:03:41.360
measurements, to the slope of your shoulders. It's got this beautiful Bemberg liner with a
00:03:46.660
Mayflower repetition inside. It's got your initials embroidered in it. It's the real deal. It's good
00:03:52.740
stuff. So I mentioned on the show a couple days ago, I said, I think these are going to sell quickly.
00:03:57.480
Um, so if you want it, I would order it now. I was even more correct than I thought I would be.
00:04:04.100
We basically sold out within 24 hours. Uh, even though it's not as though the jacket is
00:04:08.700
inexpensive. The jacket's, I think about $895. However, as I pointed out, anything even remotely
00:04:14.620
comparable to this quality off the rack would easily be double that price. When you add in the
00:04:18.980
made to measure, you're looking more like triple or quadruple that price. So I said, if you want it,
00:04:22.880
look, $900 smoking jackets, not everyone wants one. That's not, not for everyone. But if, if you
00:04:28.480
are the kind of person who does want that, uh, I would order it quickly because they're, they're
00:04:32.880
going to disappear. And that is exactly what happened. So the good news is if you did want
00:04:37.580
the jacket, we spoke to shepherds and the way it worked, we ordered a certain amount of the velvet
00:04:43.440
from this superb mill in Italy. And so I said, is there any, do we have any extra fabric? Is there any
00:04:48.940
way we can make it squeeze out even a handful more jackets? And the answer was yes, we have
00:04:53.980
enough fabric left for six black smoking jackets and we have enough fabric left for one burgundy
00:05:01.080
smoking jacket. So we are talking like none left. We have very, very few. If you want it though,
00:05:06.660
I know a number of people were disappointed that they weren't able to get it in time. Uh,
00:05:10.200
if you want it, you can get it. They, these will disappear, you know, immediately probably. So,
00:05:16.340
uh, go get it now, mayflowercigars.com if you want your jacket and to celebrate, you know,
00:05:21.620
we did the jacket, not really to make money. We're not, we're not really going to make much
00:05:24.780
money at all on, on this jacket. We did it more to celebrate the first year of Mayflower
00:05:28.680
cigars, which has been very successful. And so I want to celebrate that with a little Mayflower
00:05:37.760
D-lish. Uh, I also want to celebrate, uh, something that seems like a little bit of a dubious honor.
00:05:45.380
This is the New York times coming after your boy. I, I was tagged in this yesterday. Uh,
00:05:52.420
it's an article from the times election falsehoods take off on YouTube as it looks the other way.
00:05:56.800
And the New York times has this header picture with, with nine conservatives on it. Uh, that would
00:06:03.180
be, uh, people from all representing all parts of the conservative space, a little bit on cable news,
00:06:09.780
a little bit associated with the Trump campaign, uh, little bit, you know, you got Tucker, you got
00:06:15.320
Ben, you got all, you got Tim Poole, you got, but right in the middle of it is your boy is, is me.
00:06:21.380
So I said, huh, what did I say that the New York times considers an election falsehood?
00:06:28.240
Because I try to be rather precise in my speech. So I said, I don't, I don't think I've said anything
00:06:34.240
that they could get me on. So I read through the article. Well, I had someone print me out a copy
00:06:39.040
of the article. Cause obviously I don't want to subscribe to the New York times. And I looked
00:06:43.700
through and the answer is they didn't get me on anything. They didn't cite a single supposed
00:06:50.420
election falsehood that I've uttered. They didn't even mention me in the article. They once again,
00:06:58.100
I am being used merely as a pretty face. They put me right in the center of their election
00:07:06.240
falsehood banner. They've made me the face of election falsehood. According to the New York
00:07:10.100
times, they don't even mention me because they can't because I haven't said anything false about
00:07:16.180
the election. What they are doing is obviously just trying to get my show and all these other
00:07:23.560
shows kicked off of YouTube that you hear the headline election falsehoods take off on YouTube
00:07:28.620
as it looks the other way. And then here's the kicker. I did start to read some of the article
00:07:33.340
within months, the largest video platform became a home for election conspiracy theories,
00:07:39.100
half truths and lies. They in turn became a source of revenue for YouTube,
00:07:42.860
which announced growing quarterly ad sales on Tuesday. Okay. What's the New York times is
00:07:47.720
evidence for this during four tumultuous months of this year's presidential campaign,
00:07:51.700
researchers from media matters for America, a group that monitors information from conservative
00:07:56.180
sources, examine the consequences of YouTube's about face. This is the most embarrassing thing.
00:08:00.060
I mean, look, it's embarrassing that the, that, that the New York times made the, the centerpiece of
00:08:04.560
their election falsehoods claims, uh, someone to whom they can't cite even once for election
00:08:11.520
falsehoods. That's embarrassing. But even more embarrassing as the New York times, the gray lady
00:08:15.220
used to be the paper of record is citing media matters, a Democrat operative organization to,
00:08:23.880
to their, they're outsourcing their journalism to media matters. That is so humiliating for the New
00:08:31.160
York times. I'm not surprised because the quality of their journalism has plummeted in recent years,
00:08:36.460
but that is absolutely pathetic. So they go on. Time says, yeah, you know, media matters. It has a
00:08:43.080
point of view, but the New York times has independently verified the research. Oh yeah.
00:08:46.740
Okay. Apparently you didn't verify very well. This is amazing. The New York times independently
00:08:50.320
verifies research, examining all of the videos identified by media matters, determining whether
00:08:53.940
YouTube placed ads or fact check labels on them. Okay. So you're, hold on here. That could mean a
00:08:59.160
couple of things. You're saying you, you independently verified that YouTube,
00:09:02.900
which also suppresses conservatives agreed with media matters, which endeavors to suppress
00:09:08.300
conservatives. And then you reported this in the New York times, which is campaigning to suppress
00:09:11.720
conservatives. Okay. Uh, I guess that could be the case, but that doesn't prove anything. It
00:09:15.980
doesn't actually prove that the claims made were false, but furthermore, you say, oh, the New York
00:09:21.620
times has independently verified all of this. Oh yeah. Well, sorry. You got to excuse my skepticism
00:09:27.380
because you put my face in the middle of it and you can't cite me even once. So I don't know,
00:09:31.480
man. It doesn't look like your independent verification is, is all that trustworthy.
00:09:37.760
It's not just the New York times, the Washington post has a piece out in the podcast election,
00:09:44.720
top shows cast doubt on integrity of the 2024 vote in the podcast election. Now you can't see,
00:09:51.380
this is the printable version, but on the online version, it's just Ben Shapiro's face.
00:09:55.120
So here two in the New York times piece, two out of the nine heads they cite or daily wire heads in
00:10:01.000
the Washington post piece. Uh, the one, the one person whose picture is the banner is a daily
00:10:05.460
wire host. They they're coming for the daily wire. They're calling this the podcast election.
00:10:09.860
Notice in the New York times piece, they don't, they don't include anyone from Fox news up there.
00:10:15.460
I mean, I'm not making any point about Fox news. I'm just pointing out they're coming after the
00:10:20.240
podcasters. They're coming after the streamers. They're coming after the people in new media.
00:10:24.380
They're coming after the people who are on the cutting edge of, of broadcast media as TV
00:10:31.380
goes. The way of radio is that that kind of declines. There's, they still have some power,
00:10:36.200
but it's on the decline. The New York times, the Washington post coordinating, obviously together
00:10:41.440
on the basically the same story coming out the exact same day, going after the exact same people.
00:10:47.140
They're trying to suppress the conservatives. But then the question is, why are they doing it
00:10:51.500
with, with four or five days to go until the election? What's the point of that? You're not
00:10:56.640
going to, YouTube's not going to take us down three days before the election. I don't think.
00:11:01.160
I think this is a play for the future. I think the New York times and the Washington post are concerned
00:11:07.200
that Trump is going to win. I have it on good authority that people in the upper echelons of the
00:11:14.460
Democrat establishment think that Trump is going to win. And so they are trying to one point to people
00:11:19.740
who they can blame. They're going to blame me. They're going to blame Tim Poole. They're going
00:11:23.500
to blame Steve Dace. They're going to, they're going to blame all these people here, Ben Shapiro.
00:11:28.420
They want to, they want to blame people for it. And they want to suppress the conservatives in the
00:11:33.280
future. Now, if it is a squeaker and Kamala somehow pulls it out, or if the count goes Kamala's way
00:11:38.680
in any case, then this is going to be an opportunity to say, oh, look how close it was. We can't let it
00:11:43.480
get that close again. We need to cut off the ad revenue to the conservative broadcasters who are
00:11:47.780
moving the needle that that'll kill the conservative media, the future of the conservative media.
00:11:52.500
And then that'll let Democrats win elections again. That's what this is all about without
00:11:57.000
question. But there is something hopeful here, which is that I think the way you get these articles
00:12:04.560
is because the liberal establishment thinks that Trump very well will win. Now, speaking of election
00:12:11.040
falsehoods, I don't think it's us. It's not, it's not the people in this picture spreading the
00:12:14.560
election falsehoods. It's the establishment media itself. There's a story from the New York Post
00:12:19.640
citing a local ABC affiliate, WNEP, ABC 16, which ran a chyron
00:12:27.420
saying that Kamala Harris beat Donald Trump, 52 to 47. This was really bizarre. Reporting 100%,
00:12:37.060
Democrat Kamala Harris, 52%. How many votes? 3,293,712 to Donald Trump's 47%, 2,997,793. What?
00:12:49.160
The election hasn't happened yet. Oh, well, according to the New York Post, ABC mistakenly
00:12:57.120
aired the election results declaring Harris the winner of this, the key state of Pennsylvania.
00:13:02.140
Pennsylvania. And, but this was just a mistake. They were just testing their system.
00:13:10.720
WNEP said the results came up on the screen in error. They were randomly generated as part of a
00:13:15.080
test. Okay. They shouldn't have appeared on screen. Whoopsie daisy, no big deal.
00:13:21.800
That's the fear, guys. The fear is that the results are going to be randomly generated.
00:13:26.980
I can believe the excuse that they're working on their graphics packages,
00:13:30.260
and I can believe the excuse that producers are going to misfire. What worries me and other people
00:13:35.700
is that the results are going to be randomly generated and that they're not going to reflect
00:13:40.580
reality. If you really wanted to downplay any fears of rigging, many more people expect
00:13:49.620
any rigging that could occur to be rigging in favor of the Democrats against the Republicans.
00:13:55.340
Then why not throw up the test graphic and say Trump wins?
00:13:59.940
That would still not assuage a lot of people's fears because people don't believe in the
00:14:05.520
establishment media anymore. They don't have credibility anymore. But
00:14:08.000
it would be better than throwing up a graphic of randomly generated numbers in the crucial swing
00:14:14.100
state to say that Kamala Harris won and then say, oh, whoopsie daisy, never mind. But believe us on
00:14:18.860
Tuesday. No, four days from now, we'll have it all tucked away. This is why the Washington Post is
00:14:27.820
not endorsing this election. This is why Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, recognizes
00:14:32.560
that the WAPO, that the whole establishment media are facing a crisis.
00:14:37.580
There's so much more to say. First, though, go to supremecoup.com slash Knowles. The radical left
00:14:42.980
is plotting a Supreme Court coup. They're not even trying to hide it anymore. These progressive
00:14:46.980
ideologues want to eliminate the court's conservative majority by packing it with their
00:14:50.280
own handpicked justices. It's not court reform. It's a blatant power grab to get the outcomes they
00:14:54.880
want. Here's the frightening part. If one party controls the House, Senate, and presidency come
00:14:59.260
January, they could restructure the court overnight. With a simple majority vote and a president's
00:15:03.280
signature, their plan becomes reality. But there is hope. First, Liberty is leading the charge to
00:15:07.440
protect the Supreme Court from this radical plan. They're fighting to preserve the legitimacy of the
00:15:10.940
court and the separation of powers that safeguards our freedom. Don't let them Venezuela your
00:15:14.700
United States. Go to supremecoup.com slash Knowles. That is supremecoup.com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S
00:15:24.020
to learn how you can help stop the left's takeover of the Supreme Court. The future is in your hands.
00:15:30.580
Right now, go to supremecoup.com slash Knowles. This is one of the biggest issues at stake in this
00:15:37.900
election. Supremecoup.com slash Knowles. Jeff Bezos is defending the Washington Post's decision not to
00:15:45.660
endorse a candidate in this campaign. He wrote an op-ed. He pointed out that Americans no longer
00:15:50.540
believe the media. He said, in the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists
00:15:54.960
in the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. This year's Gallup
00:15:59.600
poll, we managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are
00:16:04.800
doing is clearly not working. I challenge you to find one instance in the 11 years, this is Bezos
00:16:11.600
writing, the 11 years in which he's owned the Washington Post, where I have prevailed upon anyone
00:16:16.260
at the Post to favor my own interests. It has not happened. While I do not and will not push my
00:16:21.520
personal interests, I will not allow this paper to stay on autopilot and fade into irrelevance,
00:16:26.040
overtaken by unresearched podcasts and social media barbs, but not without a fight, it's too important.
00:16:29.740
So you got two big plays here from the establishment media within days of each other,
00:16:36.200
and they seem to be on opposite ends of things. On the one hand, you have Bezos saying,
00:16:41.100
we want to earn back the respect of readers, so we're not going to endorse Kamala Harris. We're
00:16:44.700
not going to endorse anyone because you don't trust us anyway. On the other hand, you have the
00:16:49.260
Washington Post, that very same paper, and the New York Times saying, YouTube needs to censor
00:16:55.820
conservatives. We need to take down these conservative podcasts. On the one hand, he
00:16:59.840
seems like he's trying to be nonpartisan. On the other, the very same paper seems hyperpartisan.
00:17:04.300
How do you reconcile the two? Easily. It's that headline from the Washington Post.
00:17:10.740
In the podcast election, dot, dot, dot. In the podcast election. Don't forget, of all the
00:17:17.820
conservatives they're trying to take down in the New York Times, there's one big face missing. It's
00:17:22.680
the biggest podcaster in the world. That's Joe Rogan. Trump's appearance on Rogan has garnered
00:17:28.280
tens of millions of views. J.D. Vance went on Rogan yesterday. We'll get to it.
00:17:33.520
This is the podcast election. The podcasts are much, much, much more influential than the cable
00:17:39.960
news shows in this election. This is the first time that's ever been true. So Bezos, in his op-ed
00:17:45.460
about defending the integrity of the Washington Post, he says, we in the establishment media,
00:17:50.240
not just cable news, but newspapers, are having our lunch eaten by the podcasters,
00:17:54.680
by the streamers, by the digital platforms. And we need to stop that. We hate those guys.
00:18:00.720
We want to control the narrative still. So on the one hand, we're going to try not to seem so
00:18:06.880
hyperpartisan. On the other, we're going to try to kill off all the competition.
00:18:10.160
And who's the competition? Right here. The New York Times put all of our pictures up
00:18:13.640
right in the header of their article. Now, some in the establishment media don't get the message.
00:18:21.200
So you got CNN's Abby Phillip is arguing with Jeff Bezos. She says, no, no, no. The problem is not that
00:18:29.040
people don't trust the media, so the media have to react to that. The media need to double down in
00:18:33.320
their partisan attacks. She says, the reason people don't trust the media is because of the politicians.
00:18:38.520
I want to recognize that for all the flaws of the mainstream media, and we have a lot of them,
00:18:43.620
it's not just the media's fault that trust has been declining for decades. It's also
00:18:47.080
decades of attacks by politicians. That is the main issue, is that like,
00:18:51.280
I mean, yeah, it could be that the Washington Post is endorsing candidates, or it could be
00:18:55.580
that there are millions of voters who believe lying politicians who tell them lies,
00:19:01.740
knowing that they are. I mean, that could be the problem too.
00:19:07.400
Hmm. Is it possible that I'm out of touch? No, no. It is the children who must be wrong.
00:19:14.140
No, no. It's not. We haven't done anything to destroy our credibility. It's not our fault
00:19:19.720
that people don't trust us. No, no, no. It's Trump's fault. It's the politicians' fault. Who
00:19:24.480
are the politicians? The politicians are the representatives of the people.
00:19:31.520
And specifically the politicians that they're talking about here, I think they're talking about
00:19:38.220
Donald Trump. They're talking about the more populist politicians. Those are especially the
00:19:42.820
representatives of the people. They're not the representatives of the establishment that's
00:19:47.200
removed from the people. They're the choices of the people. So what CNN is saying here,
00:19:52.060
Stelter and that woman, what they're saying is, no, no, no. The reason that people don't trust us
00:19:58.880
anymore, the fault for that lies with the people, not with us. It's their fault that they're so
00:20:04.140
stupid and gullible and angry. They're garbage, these people. It's you garbage people. Read our
00:20:08.980
newspaper, you garbage people. Trust us. I don't think so. So this is how you get someone like
00:20:15.760
Rob Reiner here. I love this. Rob Meathead from All in the Family. He posts,
00:20:21.720
the Washington Post editorial board is a disgrace for the newspaper that exposed the Pentagon papers
00:20:26.020
and the Watergate scandal to not take a position and endorse a candidate in the most consequential
00:20:30.200
presidential election in 165 years is reprehensible. I love this. He's citing the Nixon
00:20:34.840
example. He's saying, look, the Washington Post led the way in getting rid of Richard Nixon.
00:20:41.000
But I don't know. I think the whole Watergate scandal is going to be considered rather differently
00:20:46.240
by the light of history than it was at the time. Because when I look at the Watergate scandal,
00:20:51.500
first of all, pales in comparison to anything we saw from Barack Obama or
00:20:54.840
Joe Biden in recent years. Really, it was just that some campaign operatives didn't tape a door
00:21:00.600
correctly for the sort of dirty tricks that every campaign has played for just about all of history.
00:21:07.000
But what it looks like to me is you had Richard Nixon, one of the most popularly
00:21:11.640
reelected presidents ever in American history. You had Richard Nixon ousted by a deep state coup
00:21:18.480
led by the Washington Post, which was the propaganda arm for the deep state.
00:21:23.100
It was a federal agent who was leaking this information.
00:21:28.660
And then the Washington Post ran with it as the arm of that Washington establishment that had hated
00:21:33.020
Richard Nixon for decades because Richard Nixon routed out commies in the State Department,
00:21:37.160
notably Alger Hiss, an actual card-carrying communist who was instrumental in the founding of
00:21:42.380
the UN and in crafting a lot of American policy. That's what it looks like to me.
00:21:47.100
It says, can you imagine that the organization, the newspaper that led a deep state coup to oust
00:21:53.380
one of the most popular presidents in American history, can you imagine that they might do
00:21:57.340
something underhanded? Yeah, wow, shocking to me, isn't it? There's so much more to say.
00:22:01.480
First, though, go to lumen.me, use code Knowles. It is tough to prioritize your health, especially
00:22:06.120
if you're not sure where to start. However, it's not just about making a decision.
00:22:09.720
It's about making a commitment to a better quality of life. That is why I love lumen.
00:22:15.040
Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It is a device that measures your metabolism
00:22:19.740
through your breath. All you got to do is breathe into your lumen. First thing in the morning,
00:22:23.880
you will know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs.
00:22:27.700
For me, I need things to be simple, okay? If I'm going to take care of my health,
00:22:30.920
it's got to be real simple. That's what I love about lumen. It makes it simple. You wake up,
00:22:35.720
you breathe into it, and you get all this information on your phone. You don't need to
00:22:39.700
go hire a nutritionist. You don't need to go hire your trainer to tell you about this,
00:22:43.080
that, and the other thing. Lumen does all of it for you, crafts a plan for the day.
00:22:48.700
If you want to take the next step in improving your health, I strongly recommend lumen.me
00:22:54.220
slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. It's got the Knowles stamp of approval, and if you use that code,
00:22:59.040
you will get 15% off your lumen. Lumen, L-U-M-E-N dot M-E. Use code Knowles for 15%
00:23:06.140
off your purchase. Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode.
00:23:10.360
My favorite comment yesterday is from Hymea523, who says, vote so your husband can't afford
00:23:14.820
anything so you can complain when he doesn't buy you enough. Yes, that's the point of the Julia
00:23:18.480
Roberts Democrat ad. J.D. Vance does Joe Rogan. J.D. has come out. It's a three and a half hour
00:23:26.900
interview. I'm not going to get to all of it. It's worth listening to J.D. The big takeaways are that
00:23:31.180
J.D. sounds really, really intelligent. He sounds really, really educated. He sounds really
00:23:36.160
in command of his facts. He is a normal guy. The libs tried to make him weird. That was the
00:23:41.900
word they tried to stick to him. That fell apart. They dropped that attack because, ironically,
00:23:48.260
when you hear this guy talk, he sounds so normal. He sounds so much more normal than other politicians,
00:23:54.780
certainly compared to Tim Walz or Kamala Harris. So they ended up dropping that attack,
00:23:58.820
and this, I think, was really the final nail in that coffin. Why did J.D. go on Rogan? Because
00:24:03.440
the Rogan interview was so good for Trump, and it's going to be really good for Vance,
00:24:08.340
and it's going to be good for the Trump-Vance ticket. The only clip I want to pull out is this
00:24:12.960
bit where Joe and Vance are talking about the transgender ideology, which is a huge political
00:24:19.420
winner for Republicans. It flipped Virginia red for Glenn Youngkin. It helped reelect Ron DeSantis in
00:24:24.640
Florida by an even wider margin than he would have otherwise, and it's just a winner. People who
00:24:29.140
disagree on all sorts of things—abortion, bioethics, marriage, sexual revolution—people
00:24:36.860
who are all across the political spectrum in America can agree it is wrong to castrate little
00:24:42.220
kids. We're not even talking about transgender ideology for adults. My views on that are probably
00:24:48.440
different than a lot of liberals' views on that, but we pretty much can all agree it is wrong to
00:24:53.340
castrate kids. And so they hammered this issue. And there are even people who wave the rainbow flag.
00:24:58.520
There are even LGBT-identifying people who say, this transing the kids stuff is really awful.
00:25:03.820
And J.D. Vance made a comment that made waves because it seems so out of step for many Republican
00:25:10.640
politicians. Some were calling it a contradiction in terms. I think it's politically pretty smart,
00:25:17.540
I think that, frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if me and Trump won just the normal gay guy vote.
00:25:25.260
Because, again, they just wanted to be left the hell alone, and now you have all this crazy stuff
00:25:29.720
on top of it that they're like, no, no, no, we didn't want to give pharmaceutical products to
00:25:34.140
nine-year-olds who are transitioning their genders. We just wanted to be left the hell alone.
00:25:38.100
That phrase, the normal gay guy vote, that's the phrase that is resonating and that some people
00:25:45.620
are going to take issue with. Because people are going to say, well, that's a contradiction in
00:25:49.520
terms. No knock on our friends who are a little light in the loafers, but that's not normal,
00:25:53.800
right? That's an abnormal kind of behavior. It's not normal by ideal standards. It's not normal
00:25:59.660
even by behavioral standards. It's abnormal. So what's the normal gay guy vote?
00:26:05.280
You know what it is. You know what the normal gay guy vote is. I'm from New York. I went to the most
00:26:12.580
homosexual university in the world. I lived in Los Angeles, worked around show business. I have
00:26:18.240
known a disproportionate number of people who are a little eccentric in their behaviors and desires.
00:26:25.140
You know what he's talking about here. He's talking about something that is, by the way,
00:26:31.500
not even just rewinding the clock 10 or 15 years. He's talking about a perennial fact.
00:26:39.320
I'm about as traditionalist as they come. However, it is simply a fact that throughout all of history,
00:26:45.640
certainly going back to ancient Athens, there have been fellows who, you know, engage in some
00:26:50.360
aberrant behavior. That's just been the case. And there have always been kind of Paul Lind characters
00:26:56.460
who, you know, confirmed bachelors, don't really want to get married. You don't really ask too much
00:27:01.040
about it. That's existed. You know, it's a fallen world. There are all sorts of eccentric things that
00:27:08.640
take place. And that was broadly, you know, kind of understood. Even when there were laws against that
00:27:17.500
kind of behavior, they were very rarely enforced. They really only existed as a matter of setting
00:27:23.100
standards and setting norms. But in the West, you know, we're not, we're not the people who go up
00:27:29.220
and, you know, they say, are you, are you a little light in the loafers or are we going to toss you
00:27:32.760
off a rooftop? That's not, they do that in other cultures, but we don't really, we've never really
00:27:36.340
done that in the West. When he says, look, there's some people who they just want to, they want to do
00:27:42.420
what they do and be left alone. They don't want to parade it in the street. They don't want to change
00:27:45.900
the laws. They don't want to pretend that marriage is something different than it is. They just,
00:27:48.900
they just kind of want to be left alone and not bothered. And that's existed for a long time.
00:27:55.020
And those, and you know, okay, that's, this is the world. All right. That's how it's been for,
00:27:59.400
for ever. That's different than militant activists who want to ram these kinds of crazy ideologies
00:28:07.300
down, down your kids' throats in elementary school. Okay. That's very different. And the guys who just
00:28:13.380
are kind of, you know, they, they want to, they want to do their own thing. It's a little different
00:28:17.960
than other people do, but they don't, they're not trying to make an issue about it. They just
00:28:21.080
want to do their own thing. I think JD's right. I think those guys are going to vote for Trump.
00:28:25.840
By and large, I think they're going to vote for Trump. The militant activists who want to
00:28:30.020
redefine reality, those people are going to vote for Kamala. The more normal guys, they're going to
00:28:35.420
vote for Trump. No question. Now the Trump Vance ticket is getting all sorts of support, not just from
00:28:41.880
the so-called normal gay guys, but also from prominent Democrats, not just Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi,
00:28:46.440
but also Bill Clinton. I don't think it's right to say that people have to vote for Donald Trump
00:28:55.420
because the economy was better there. I don't believe that. I don't think, now listen here,
00:29:01.580
listen here, folks. You're going to hear a lot of people tell you that the economy was a lot better
00:29:06.880
under Donald Trump and it was, it was a lot better. Okay. But you don't have to vote for Trump just
00:29:14.780
because your inflation was way down and wages were rising for the first time in 40 years. And
00:29:20.740
because things were just so great and we were so rich and it was awesome, man, it was awesome. But
00:29:24.700
you don't, I do not believe you have to vote for Trump just because of how awesome it was when he
00:29:30.160
was president. Feel your pain. Brutal. Brutal for Kamala. I don't think that Bill Clinton is
00:29:39.080
intentionally undermining Kamala Harris here, but he is undermining her. I think, I think Joe Biden
00:29:43.860
is intentionally undermining Kamala Harris because he hates her and she took his job and she launched
00:29:47.780
her presidential campaign calling him a racist. I think she, he truly hates that woman and wants
00:29:51.640
her to lose. Bill Clinton, I think, wants Kamala to win because I think he's trying to get an
00:29:55.160
ambassadorship for his daughter, Chelsea. That's at least the scuttlebutt in the DC reporting.
00:30:00.600
So I think he's trying to help her, but, but Bill Clinton recognizes, you know, voters aren't stupid.
00:30:05.340
Kamala thinks voters are stupid. Joe Biden, to some degree, thinks voters are stupid.
00:30:09.540
Bill Clinton respects voters. You got to give him that. He might lie to your face, but he thinks
00:30:14.320
you're relatively clever. So he's going to try to do a good job lying. And, and if he can, he's going
00:30:18.540
to try to work with the facts to, to spin them in such a way that they seem plausible. Bill Clinton
00:30:24.680
respects voters and he knows that voters know that the economy is horrible right now. That eggs are much
00:30:32.720
more expensive than they used to be. That everything is 22 and a half to maybe 30% more expensive than
00:30:38.180
it was when Joe Biden took office. And they know that Kamala is promising exactly the same policy.
00:30:42.600
She said she wouldn't have differed from Biden in any way. So he knows he's not going to say,
00:30:47.300
no, the economy has been awesome under Biden and Harris. And she's so good. No, he, he say,
00:30:51.800
he's going to say, look, yeah, the economy is terrible. And it was way better under Trump, but
00:30:55.480
just think about how great abortion is or whatever, whatever it is that Kamala can offer that,
00:31:01.200
that Trump cannot. He's like, forget about the economy. It's kind of ironic too, because the
00:31:06.040
motto of his 92 campaign was it's the economy stupid. That was James Carville's line, one of
00:31:11.240
his top advisors. And yet now Bill Clinton, the only thing he can run it is it's not the economy
00:31:18.500
stupid. It is still the economy stupid, but please think about something else. Now, speaking of people
00:31:25.740
who are a little, who are not, who do not respect voters quite as much and who are also making weak
00:31:31.360
arguments for Kamala Harris, the Avengers have assembled the Avengers. I think I watched one of
00:31:37.620
those movies. I can't, I don't like the superhero movies, but, uh, and I really don't like those with
00:31:42.160
like Mark Ruffalo and all these insufferable libs, but they just came out and they, they put together
00:31:47.760
their very best version of a, of a commercial for Kamala. How about we start with, uh, what our
00:31:54.360
voting plans are going to be, who we're going to bring to the polls with us, that sort of thing.
00:31:58.300
I think Kamala Harris needs a catchphrase. How about I'm down with democracy? It's just clean,
00:32:04.620
it's simple. Okay. I like that. It's hard to argue with that. Kamala Harris down with democracy.
00:32:10.020
Oh yeah. I'm Kamala Harris and I say down with democracy. I don't know if that sounds the way
00:32:15.920
we want it to sound though. I think we just need, can we get some production though?
00:32:19.640
Jarvis? My name's not Jarvis, but whatever. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. That's right. Hmm. Down with
00:32:25.720
democracy. Down with democracy. Is that what we mean though? Yeah, together we're going to tear
00:32:30.680
down democracy. Will you stop playing heroic music under yourselves? I'm Kamala Harris and I am down
00:32:38.440
with democracy. Did I sound enough like her on that one? That was great. How many Golden Globes have
00:32:43.900
you been nominated for? I'm just curious. Yes. All right. That was awesome.
00:32:54.300
It's a little weak. It's a little weak, right? These guys, they want to do an ad for Kamala
00:32:57.940
Harris. They won't even all get in the same room. I think most, if not all of them live in LA. It's
00:33:02.060
not like they're that far from each other, but they do it as a Zoom thing. So it's a little weak sauce.
00:33:06.340
And then, but what's the bit? The bit is they're saying I'm down with democracy. We'll shorten it to
00:33:10.940
down with democracy. Oh, ha ha. That makes it sound like Kamala hates democracy. That she's
00:33:15.240
the undermining of democracy. Ha ha ha. Vote for Kamala anyway. In jokes, there is often a little
00:33:22.000
kernel of truth. The reason this joke works is that Kamala's candidacy, Kamala's nomination does
00:33:30.140
in fact represent an undermining of democracy because no one voted for her. All the Democrats voted for
00:33:36.640
Biden. And then they just booted Biden out. The party elites booted Biden out and replaced him
00:33:41.600
without any voting with Kamala. So the joke is true. If you vote for Kamala, you are actively
00:33:50.800
undermining democracy. Ha ha ha. Isn't that funny? Anyway, because this is what the Democrats are
00:33:56.740
saying. The real Democrat argument going all the way back up to the New York Times trying to kick
00:34:02.440
your boy and other conservatives off of YouTube and the Washington Post trying to do exactly the
00:34:07.800
same thing. And the Harris campaign, the Democrats changing the election rules in some ways illegally
00:34:15.040
in 2020. The point of all of it, if you, if you, if you got a couple of drinks in them and had them
00:34:20.660
be really candid with you, they would say, well, look, sure, this is kind of undemocratic what we're
00:34:25.360
doing. Replacing our nominee, kicking out the guy that everyone voted for and replacing this woman,
00:34:30.140
replacing him with this woman that no one voted for. But, but if we want to save democracy,
00:34:35.340
we have to undermine democracy right now. That's what they're saying. To save democracy,
00:34:39.760
we have to imprison Donald Trump. To save democracy, we have to keep people from even being able to vote
00:34:45.080
for Donald Trump by kicking him off the ballot. To save democracy, we need to kick the conservatives
00:34:48.580
off YouTube. To save democracy, we need to undermine democracy. That's what, that's their real
00:34:53.060
argument here. And it's a ridiculous argument. In this case, there's no way a Kamala Harris
00:35:00.600
presidency would strengthen democracy. But, but that is their argument. Because ultimately, by the
00:35:08.360
way, what they really mean by democracy is not allowing the people to have a say. They're blaming
00:35:12.300
the people for not believing the mainstream media. That's the people's fault. Everything's the people's
00:35:15.960
fault. What they mean is liberalism. And when there's a disagreement between the people and
00:35:19.580
liberalism, they're going to pick liberalism every time. Our box office hit, Am I Racist,
00:35:24.880
is streaming exclusively on Daily Wire. Plus, right now, get 47% off with a new membership with
00:35:28.860
code FIGHT. Want to know how Matt Walsh pulled it off? Well, he breaks it all down with exclusive
00:35:33.920
bonus content, taking you behind the scenes on the greatest troll against the libs in history.
00:35:39.060
Plus, there's a deleted Johnny the Walrus scene that Matt did not show in theaters. The only way to
00:35:43.340
see it is on Daily Wire. Plus, get 47% off now, dailywire.com slash subscribe, code FIGHT.
00:35:49.820
Finally, finally, I've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you
00:35:52.660
in the mailbag. Our mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk. Go to puretalk.com slash Knowles,
00:35:57.100
Canada W-L-E-S today. Switch to a qualifying plan. Get one year free of Daily Wire Plus Insider.
00:36:03.440
Hi, Michael. Thank you so much for all that you do. Love this show. So I'll make this quick. I am 30.
00:36:10.440
I am currently at a crossroads in my life. I have been pursuing a career. However, it doesn't hold
00:36:17.940
the significance that I've thought it would because obviously I want to get married. I want to have
00:36:23.800
children. That's very important to me. But I'm single and I'm trying to meet someone and I'm
00:36:28.600
trying to make that the priority in my life. So my question to you, is it wrong to almost forsake
00:36:35.000
the career that my family's been supporting me in and helping me financially to pursue
00:36:42.580
a family? Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you so much. God bless.
00:36:49.240
No, it's not wrong. It's right. Obviously, you know that answer. The way you're asking me,
00:36:53.860
you're just asking me to affirm that and I agree with you. You say, well, my family has been
00:36:59.320
supporting me in this career. They've been giving me money even to help support my career. Okay.
00:37:04.420
Why have they been doing that? What's the purpose of the career? What's the point of the career?
00:37:09.180
And what's the point of all your work toward the career? And what's the point of your family's
00:37:12.540
support of your work toward the career? The point is your happiness. The point is your flourishing.
00:37:18.740
The point is you're living a good life. And what you're saying is, I've now realized that my career
00:37:25.260
career is not the be all and end all. The career is not in itself conducing toward giving me a good
00:37:31.040
life. The career is not making me happy. Family is much more likely to make me happy. And so I'd like
00:37:39.620
to maybe work a little bit less and maybe not quite make partner at the big firm, but also not work 80
00:37:46.180
hours a week so that I have time to go on a date and find a husband and get married and have kids.
00:37:50.540
And that's going to make me happier. Do that. That's the point. The only reason to have even
00:37:57.920
pursued the career in the first place is as an instrument in the furtherance of your flourishing
00:38:05.160
and your happiness. If it's not achieving that, as it will not in and of itself, almost certainly,
00:38:13.760
then you got to change course a little bit. It's the C.S. Lewis point that the man who's going
00:38:20.340
down the wrong road and then stops and turns around and goes back the other direction is more
00:38:26.760
progressive than the man who just keeps moving forward and forward forever. Because progress
00:38:32.420
is dependent upon some end that you're seeking. Obviously. If you said, wow, I'm just totally
00:38:40.780
flourishing my career. I really have no interest in marriage or children. I'm the unicorn. I'm the rare
00:38:45.940
person who really, and there are people like that, and marriage is not for everyone. Kids are not for
00:38:49.340
everyone. The religious life is not for everyone. But if you're that rare person, okay. But for most
00:38:56.180
people, they're going to come to the conclusion you've come to. And then the question is, are they
00:39:00.280
going to have the wisdom and the courage to follow that insight and maybe give up a little bit of the
00:39:07.060
career and pursue what will make them happy or not? Will they stubbornly and stupidly go down the
00:39:11.980
path that's making them unhappy? Next question. Hi, Michael. You mentioned that you're close friends
00:39:17.820
with someone who is liberal, and I'm curious how you manage that dynamic. My husband and I have lost
00:39:23.580
quite a few friends over the past year after openly sharing our conservative views, which has made me
00:39:29.580
hesitant to form new connections, especially with people who may hold more liberal or far-left
00:39:35.760
beliefs. What advice would you offer for building and maintaining friendships with liberals? I'd love
00:39:41.600
to hear your thoughts on how you navigate those differences. By the way, I hope you're still
00:39:46.160
enjoying the Trump Perfectation Era t-shirt I made and gave you at CPAC. Looking forward to your response.
00:39:52.560
Thanks so much, Michael. Thank you for the marvelous t-shirt. That was absolutely wonderful.
00:39:57.440
I vividly recall you were giving it to me at CPAC. I am friends with liberals. I'm from New York. I went
00:40:04.880
to a very liberal university. I lived in LA. I am friends with liberals, but I have lost friends.
00:40:09.520
I've lost a number of friends, especially as I've gotten a little bit more of a public profile,
00:40:15.040
as the show's done well and the books have done well. My views haven't changed all that much. I've
00:40:20.000
become more conservative. My views have deepened and developed, but they haven't really fundamentally
00:40:25.040
changed all that much. So I don't think it's the development of my views. I think it's the
00:40:30.160
undeniability for some of my liberal friends to say, oh, gosh, he's really out there. He's really
00:40:38.620
saying that thing on YouTube or TV or something. I really, and they will end a friendship sometimes.
00:40:44.800
I've lost friends. I still have plenty of liberal friends, but I've lost a number of liberal friends.
00:40:50.260
If you lose friends over politics, it will be the liberals ending the friendship.
00:40:57.380
999 times out of a thousand. If friendships are to be lost over politics, it will be the liberals
00:41:03.240
ending the friendship with the Republicans, with the conservatives. Conservatives don't really do that.
00:41:10.000
If you meet people who never interact with anyone of the opposite political persuasion,
00:41:15.100
it is most likely to be liberals who don't know Republicans, who don't spend any time with
00:41:20.260
Republicans or conservatives. It will be the liberals who cannot tolerate being friends with
00:41:24.220
conservatives rather than the conservatives not being tolerating the liberals. 999 times out of
00:41:30.100
a thousand. So what can you do? You can be winsome. You can, you know, have some humor. You can,
00:41:35.720
you know, be tolerant to a reasonable degree. You can agree to disagree on certain things. You can
00:41:43.020
focus on whatever. But at a certain point, if the liberals don't want to be friends with you,
00:41:47.040
there's nothing you can say. You don't need to beg for their friendship. You don't need to plead
00:41:50.300
with them or grovel. If they don't want to be your friend, then okay, they don't have to be your
00:41:53.220
friend. But most of the time, the sad fact is the choice will not be yours whether or not to end
00:42:00.120
that friendship. It'll, it'll be the liberals. It's a pity. It wasn't always totally like that,
00:42:07.000
When I was attending grad school, my composition professor, I'm a music student at this time,
00:42:11.000
turned to the class and said, if you're looking for an objective way to measure beauty,
00:42:15.200
it's whatever unifies opposites successfully. When I heard this, I rejected it because it
00:42:20.180
sounded like a bunch of Hegelian dialectics to me, which is just neo-Marxism. But ever since then,
00:42:24.620
I've come to learn that he was actually right. I'm still a musician. I'm a full-time musician.
00:42:29.220
Every piece of art that I consume operates dialectically. And I think Andrew Klavan understands
00:42:33.400
that fiction operates dialectically. I think the mistake that leftists make is that they try to force
00:42:39.840
dialectical values on top of the real world and morality and politics and history. And I think
00:42:45.960
conservatives tend to shy away from the arts and they tend to shy away from dialectics and reject it
00:42:51.980
completely. I think that conservatives should recognize that art operates dialectically and art
00:42:57.900
is basically something false, but nevertheless says something true if it's good. What are your thoughts?
00:43:04.880
I respect that insight. I respect that you have had that insight. I don't really agree with any of
00:43:11.920
that. I don't. Even, you know, dis and Hegel. Hegel's difficult to read and understand. But, you know,
00:43:19.120
Hegel is not just doing Marx or neo-Marxism or whatever. Hegel comes before Marx. And, but even that,
00:43:26.760
I don't, you know, I don't think it's, the art is necessarily dialectic or reconciling opposites.
00:43:31.620
I think, uh, you asked about beauty. What is beauty? I think I go with Thomas Aquinas on most
00:43:37.660
things. Uh, beauty is that which pleases when seen and not just seen meaning noticed with the eyes,
00:43:44.480
but, but seen, you know, as in, uh, beheld in the mind. Um, that beauty is that which pleases when
00:43:51.700
seen. And there's some debate over whether or not beauty is a transcendental like, um, you know,
00:43:57.060
goodness or truth or, but, but that's it. Beauty is that which pleases when seen. And, uh, I think
00:44:03.400
that that's a lot simpler than, uh, you know, there, there can be some beauty in, uh, reconciling
00:44:10.860
apparent opposites, not real opposites, but apparent opposites like mercy and justice within God. Both
00:44:16.980
God has both perfect mercy and perfect justice. Those are from our, uh, mere, mere mortal, uh,
00:44:22.180
standpoint, uh, you know, apparent opposites, but the, you know, they're reconciled in God. Um,
00:44:28.280
but I think it's simpler than that. Beauty is that which pleases when seen. I can think of art that
00:44:33.940
does not seem dialectic to me, but, but I can't think, or rather I can think of beautiful things
00:44:39.800
that are not dialectical, you know, like a sunset or something or a beautiful waterfall or something
00:44:46.440
like that. But, um, but they all please when seen. Yeah, there's so much more I want to get to,
00:44:51.140
but we're gonna have to do in the member block. And I have my friend Dinesh D'Souza on. The rest
00:44:54.200
of the show continues now. You don't want to miss it. Go to dailywire.com. Use promo code
00:44:58.380
Knowles. Get two months free on all annual plans.