The One Thing Saving Us From Civil War | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 223
15:09 "... their chili that was the one a remaining ..."

Like this video? For more Ben Shapiro and Daily Wire content, subscribe to this channel and the Ben Shapiro YouTube channel and ring the bell for notifications so you never miss a story!well you've heard the the old canard probably haven't you about how a movement if it sticks around too long it will eventually become a business and then it goes from a business into a racket and I think that that has proven correct over over history it is a it is certainly true of the so-called nevertrump movement now never Trump meant something it served a purpose in in the campaign especially in the primaries the idea was very simple Trump cannot be the nominee we cannot support Trump as the nominee that was the idea but as you may remember he did become the nominee and and then he became president so it makes no sense to still identify as never Trump when Trump is the president what does that even mean now it's it's it's not a matter of voting anymore he's already there so never Trump never what never Trump what never what is it that you're never doing in regards to Trump the only thing that makes sense now now that he's president and this has been my this has been my strategy for the last two years I think it's the only honest path forward the only rational path forward and that is to to hold Trump accountable like we should for any president any politician to criticize him when he's wrong and to support him when he's right and that again is what we should do for any politician any president and it is the only morally and intellectually defensible path any path aside from that is is absurd now some former so-called never Trump errs myself included although I never really liked that label but I would have been lumped in with that with that category during the primaries so this is what I've tried to do I will defend Trump a hundred times in a week if if I'll defend him passionately if I think that he's right or if I think in a certain attack is unfair I've defended him on many topics including very stridently on the whole Cohen thing you know III think that the whole concept of taking the president's lawyer and forcing him to give up dirt on the president is dangerous and unethical in the extreme so of course I'm gonna defend Trump on that but I will also criticized Trump and I will criticize him passionately if I think that he's wrong I'm not shy about that I I don't care if it in as far as I'm concerned anyone in the audience anyone who reads me or watches the show listens to it and has and cannot stomach any criticism of Trump whatsoever well then that's not someone that I care to appeal to and if they decide to never listen to me again I'm perfectly fine with that honestly that's someone who I don't think I even want to appeal to that sort of person someone who is just a narrow-minded sycophant who is a just a groupie for a politician that it's just not the kind of audience that I personally want to assemble so for instance Trump obsessively whining about a man who died months ago and attacking the man's family and complaining that no one thanked him for allowing the man to have a funeral that I think is completely ridiculous and you have to be a totally sold-out sycophant to defend a trump on that score not saying that I mean there are plenty of reasons to be opposed to the kinds of things that John McCain did when he was politician and I was certainly a big McCain Critic myself but this obsession with him and attacking him after he died this is just the kind of thing that it of course if any Democrat president did that to anyone it doesn't matter who they are every Republican would be freaking out about it so it's just it's it's it is indefensible now there are other never Trump errs who have who had become sold out who had become sold out sycophants themselves they went from opposing Trump and warning that we would be disastrous for the country and for conservatism and now they follow him around like a puppy licking his palms begging for treats some that former never Trump errs have done that they have completely flipped they went from no we can't have Trump - now they are bowing before him as a god and they defend him on everything now those are people that when they were never Trump and now these are just people that that are they're just pandering to whatever they think the biggest audience will be they have no integrity they have nothing to offer there's no reason to listen to them on anything on the other end though you have some former never Trump errs who have become essentially Democrats and they have decided to get revenge on Trump by becoming full-time lackeys of the left and I find these people completely repugnant Bill Kristol donated to Ralph Northam champagne in Virginia because he's so Trump made his tummy hurt and so then he went and donated to Ralph Northam Ralph Northam is the radically pro-abortion infanticidal governor of Virginia who also wore blackface now we didn't know about the blackface thing we also didn't necessarily know about the infanticide thing when he ran we did know that he was a Democrat and a pro-abortion Democrat that's the only kind that exists anymore Christel supported him because he hates Trump so much Cristal also helped to start a publication called the bulwark it is a it's a never never Trump a liberal website because that's that's basically what never Trump means of you if you still identify as that that means that that's what it's become it has become a liberal racket it has become a wing of the Democrat Party and that's not because I'm not saying that if you criticize Trump you're a Democrat no that's a stupid thing to say what I'm saying is if you still identify as that what that means now is that you will oppose Trump no matter what he does and whatever he says you're gonna take the opposite approach so even when so that means if Trump comes out and says oh we're gonna take some money from Planned Parenthood we're gonna do this pro-life thing you're all the sudden against it so that just makes you a Democrat is what it makes you they have this crystal started this helped to start this publication called the bulwark which claims to be a website defending conservatism which is a total joke it is a website which now pushes Democratic liberalism it is in the business of attacking conservatism and and conservatives individually and conservative values they sent a pro-abortion extremists to CPAC to mock pro-lifers just to give you an idea of what the never Trump crowds up to now they also had an article reason I'm bringing this up they had an article making the rounds yesterday blasting a whole a whole host of conservatives for according to the article agitating for civil war and the article gives examples of various conservatives who have been warning that a civil war is on the horizon and the writer of the article wags his little finger and at these conservatives who are supposedly engaging in violent and dangerous and scary rhetoric about civil war except that obviously the people who are saying that we may be on the verge of a civil war it's not that they want one they're not saying that let's have a civil war they're saying that I think that's where we're headed now is that true well I think it is it might not be fun to talk now I think we are on that path but I don't think there actually will be a civil war and I'll explain why and this is all it's not fun to talk about it is unpleasant but that doesn't make it wrong we have most of the ingredient ingredients now for civil strife and unrest if if not full-on civil war so let's think about it here we have first and foremost deep and unbridgeable ideological divides what I say unbridgeable I mean unbridgeable in the sense that there is no meeting in the middle there's no compromise okay it's not like you've got one side saying one thing another side saying another and you could meet in the middle and you know you each could have a little bit of you know it's if you come to an understanding or something like that it the divides are so deep and irrevocable that the only way to meet is for one side or the other to give up their defenses and to surrender and say you know what you're right that's that's the only thing that can happen so you have one side saying for instance that babies aren't people and advocating for the continued slaughter of the unborn they say that it's that that biological sex isn't real they say that America is systematically racist and sexist masculinity is toxic religion is poison let's let's have drag queens come in and talk to kindergartners that kind of thing then you have the other side that takes the opposite position on all of those topics these are positions that cannot be brought together in understanding like either unborn babies are people or they aren't either it is a horrendous crime against humanity to kill those individuals or it's perfectly fine you know it can't be sort of one and sort of the other so we have that we also have as a corollary to the ideological divide we also have a cultural divide and this was one of the primary things that led to the the civil the first let's hope the only civil war in 1861 even aside from slavery or politics or economics all of those things obviously played a part in in in the civil war but the fact also was that the antebellum South and the industrial north were like two different countries with people in both countries who didn't understand or particularly like the folks in the other on the other side now our cultural divide isn't so much between industrialized and agricultural or whatever but it's it our divide is more religious and ideological and kind of philosophical in nature which i think is shall we say an even spicier issue to be divided on because at the end of the day even in civil war times you had people with very different from very different cultures different priorities and things but they did agree on some really fundamental basic issues first and foremost being they were all religious they were almost all Christian they believed in God I mean almost all of them did and so that is a obviously a one really significant foundational similarity that we don't even have that anymore we also have economic divides we have Geographic divides now the geographic divides aren't quite as clear-cut as north or south but you could point on a map - well these are basically liberal areas and here are conservative areas the point is yes if civil war is a chilly let's say then we've got most of the ingredients we've got the beef we've got the pork yes you should put a little pork in your chili we've got the spices we've got the peppers no beans ever in Chile but we are missing one ingredient we're missing the beer in the chili and you can't make a chili without a beer and the beer for us in this particular chili is is really simple it's its willingness we have we don't that's the difference is we don't we don't have sort of the willingness to fight like they did back then so the men in the Civil War area era these were these guys were fighters especially in the south they were willing to fight it out they also were not living comfortable lives many of them a lot of the generals were living comfortable eyes but the the grunts the the infantry guys they were coming from poverty they were coming from dirt floors and working in the fields that's the life that they have the thing that saves us from violent conflict I think is that we're pretty comfortable at the end of the day we're pretty lazy we're unwilling to to completely upend our apple cart and make the sacrifices that such a conflict would require and I say that with gratitude I mean I don't like that people are lazy but I'm grateful that we're not gonna have a civil war I don't that's I don't want that 600,000 people died in the Civil War anyone who would root for that is a psychopath but my point is simply that people aren't you know the the the the factor that I think prevents civil war in our case is that people aren't willing to do it back in the Civil War times guys were still dueling right you had duels like if a guy insulted you you would say sir I challenge you to a duel and you would go out you would shoot bullets at each other's head these were guys willing to die to defend their honor now these days if somebody insults you and you pull out a gun and say sir I challenge you to a duel the guy's gonna say Oh what dude dude okay I'm sorry never mind forget what I just said it's the calm down man like take it easy and that would be the end of it and that's probably good it's better to end that way than by shooting someone in the head but but those were different sorts of men and they were men who weren't afraid of death really not not near what they were afraid but not nearly as afraid as we are they had much more physical courage typically and I'm not advocating that we prove our courage by dueling or by fighting civil wars I'm just observing a fact so that was the beer in their chili that was the one a remaining factor that they had they had a we have a lot of the things that they have but they also had they had that kind of desperation that willingness that for lack of a better term that more violent kind of nature that we don't have and that's what's going to stop it but it Civil War I think it will not prevent the continuing and deepening divide between us that's the thing and where does that divide lead I don't know exactly I'm not a I'm not a prophet I can't prophesy about it but it doesn't lead anywhere good and I could more realistically see a scenario where I could see a scenario where you've got I mean think look at the the riots and things we had especially for a period of you know a year or two there where it seemed like every few weeks or every couple months there would be a riot and one of these cities I could see a scenario where you see where things like that happen much more frequently how do we stop how do we pull ourselves back from that I wish I had the answer to that question I don't know because as I said there is no easy middle ground that we can find all right uh let's see here Joe Biden a little bit of political news Joe Biden is about to announce his presidential campaign Biden by the way is 76 years old soon to be 77 so I want you to think about something here you have to be 35 years old to run for president now nobody seems to complain about that right nobody calls that ageism there are certain realities about age and one of those realities is that typically wisdom and it when you age you gain wisdom and you gain experience and so we would say that if somebody is 25 or 26 years old they aren't they are going to probably be short on wisdom and experience and so that's someone who we don't want in the White House not because not because we're discriminating against them or because there's anything wrong with being 25 or 26 years old there's nothing wrong with being any age it's just you can't help it is it your your going to be every age until eventually you die and then you're not going to be anymore ages after that so we don't we don't consider that ageism well there are realities about age on the other end of the spectrum too and the most harsh reality on the other end of the spectrum is that age will eventually kill you unless something else does the job first age is a deadly thing and before you die if you live long enough your mental and physical capacities will diminish it's going to happen the only way that it won't happen to you is if you die before that but if you don't then it will happen it happens to everyone we are mortal animals this is part of the package and so that is why it's completely absurd for elderly men in this when you're 78 years old Joe Biden is going to be 78 years old on Inauguration Day that is elderly the the life expectancy for men in America is 76 now yeah that number is way down by men who die much younger but still point is it's it's really old way too old to take on the most stressful job on the planet now as I pointed out before think about what the job did to George Bush who was a young man when he got into office or Barack Obama also read both of them relatively young men think about what they look like after eight years it aged them considerably now think about what it would do to a guy who's 78 when he gets into office by the time midterms roll around Joe Biden will be 80 years old at 80 years old you will be you will have been AARP eligible for 30 years at 80 80 years old is also the age where people typically start to get dementia if they're going to get it it's not ageism cannot be a that's just a reality at 80 years old your chances of getting dementia developing to then dementia are pretty good at it at the age of 50 or 60 they are very very low what happens when a president gets dementia does anyone know what do we do about that I mean how do we know that he I mean sometimes it's not obvious right away and what happens when he has the early onset of dementia do we what do you do well we've never really had to figure that out but Joe Biden's insatiable thirst for power may force us to to figure it out Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have been running for political office or holding political office for a hundred years between them they just can't get enough of it and they're gonna keep going until it literally kills them and I think that's reason enough to to to oppose their candidacies and I haven't even gotten into their bad policy ideas but before you even get to that the fact is these are elderly men who are obsessed with power and cannot let it go anyone who wants to be presidents so bad that they'll run for president at the age of 78 that is someone who should not be president you know the other problem I think with having someone at that age be president is that an elderly person isn't going to be around to reap the consequences of their policies and their actions and I think that's just not fair to the rest of us like it's not fair that you have control over the future of America and it's a future you're not even gonna be a part of that's not fair to I so we deserve to have somebody in there who's gonna have to also live with the consequences of whatever they do how do you hold such a person accountable I mean when someone is 8 years old and they're president they are almost definitely going to be dead within 10 years probably be within 5 now that I look it's it's not a pleasant reality it's just the reality of the situation most people don't live past 85 especially men yeah there are exceptions but most people don't so it's just why should a person like that care what the voters think well they're not going to they have nothing to lose and you know it's it's it's it's it it's difficult enough when you have a lame-duck president like when you've got a some a president on his second term and he knows he's leaving after this well what about when you have someone who's about to be term limited out of existence itself I mean how do you how do you control someone like that now there are many reasons to not vote for Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden I just think that this is this is definitely one of them and this is why there should be an age limit on the presidency it should be you can't run until you're 35 and you can't run after you're 75 that gives you a good 40 year window to become president and guess what if you can't do it in those 40 years then it's just over I let it go go home and play with your grandchildren you don't get to be president well you know what almost nobody gets to be President so that's okay it's not much of an injustice I'm never gonna be President you've never been president never will be so so so why should Joe Biden be President Joe Biden ran for president the first time thirty years ago okay I mean you it's let it go now it's it's over every time I talk about this there are people who say I was talking about yesterday and someone said well my my grandmother is 92 years old and she sharp as a tack and your your generalizations are ageist oh come on first of all nothing I have said here is factually inaccurate are you gonna deny that that your mental and physical capacity is diminished generally over time are you going to deny that you're much more likely to get dementia at 80 than you are at 50 are you gonna deny that most people die before they're 85 no you cannot deny any those are just facts to call something a gist because it's a it's like if I said you know one year olds can't can you need me diapers because they can't they can't use the toilet you said well that's ages how could you make such a sweeping statement about one-year-old it's not ages that's just a reality of their age yes you're not - your grandmother may be sharp as a tack but there are 92 year old most people don't live to 90 - most people die before that and and most 92 year olds who are living they may be sharp for 90 - but they're not as sharp as they were when they were 50 and they so physically they're definitely not going to be as there is no 92 year old living today who is in good physical shape compared to a 50 or 40 year old it's just this we are mortals okay it's just what happens I know it's uncomfortable to think about you know I think part of this when I talk about this and people are react how dare you say that I you know what I think part of it because the reaction on the surface seems so ridiculous because everything I'm saying is factually correct you cannot deny it but the people who react that way I think part of it is just a fear of death like they're afraid of their own mortality they don't want to admit that this is just what happens like we are all marching into this we're all marching into the abyss of you know of death and diminishment and that's where we're headed it's just I'm sorry I don't I don't like it any more than you do there is no good reason there is no good reason to have seventy eight year olds running for president there isn't it does not benefit the country you cannot think of a good reason for it it would not harm the country in any way whatsoever to cap it at 75 and I could think of many ways that would help us I mean at 75 you forget about running for president you should have to go and retake drivers doesn't mean the fact that we let people drive until they're 90 without with it that alone is crazy enough let alone be President so all right let's see I think I'm gonna jump ahead to emails because there were several emails emails that I wanted to answer some really interesting subjects okay let's check in with the inbox Matt wall show at matt wall show at if you want to get a hold of show this is from daniel says dear man i am a firm believer in Jesus Christ and thoroughly enjoy the subject of apologetics one of the tougher subjects that I have often wrestled with is the veracity of Scripture while the Bible states that the Word of God is forever preserved in heaven it does not explicitly state that God preserves his word here on earth a great example of this is found in 2nd Kings 22 where King Josiah finds the book of the law hidden within the temple this means that there was a long time where the people of God did not have portions of Scripture how do we defend the Canon that we have today I've often heard the Bible challenged in that it is simply a conglomeration of text chosen by men historically this is true and the accusation is hard to deny ultimately I personally accept the veracity of Scripture by faith since it is so accurately describes the world around me and how I relate to God that being said that is a defense from faith and while there is nothing unholy about it it is a difficult defence with which to convince a skeptic along this topic I have a couple of other related questions being a Protestant I have a general understanding that the Catholic faith accepts the Apocrypha I am not sure where you stand on this and please correct me if I'm wrong but could you let me know why or why not you accept the Apocrypha of Scripture last of all within Protestant circles there's often a very strong debate concerning translations while I do not believe that any translation is god-breathed there are many around me who do namely the King James Version I believe that translations can be open to error and the only truly script the only truly scripture and the only anything means to say the only Scripture truly inspired by God are the original manuscripts which appear to have been lost to time I do believe that a translation can be truly evil when it distorts and changes biblical doctrine but I believe there are many consistent and faithful translations that I would deem acceptable for knowing God how would you define the need for looking at translations as well as addressing those who choose one translation only and condemn the rest all right thanks to that email it's a great email a very needy and this is why that's why this is my favorite part of the show because I get these great topics and I don't even consider them questions like it's not like you're coming to me so I could teach you because I think a lot of you probably know more than I do about almost everything but it's just you're bringing up a topic that we could talk about which I really appreciate and I also like how Daniel you same thing I said that someone yesterday I think I think it's great how you're thinking about these things and being being critically minded I love when I see that in Christians I think that unfortunately it's somewhat rare it I could be wrong my general impression my feeling is that most Christians at least in America don't really think about these things they don't think about the Bible they don't really try to understand it especially not from Anna story a historical standpoint and I think that's unfortunate and what so then one of the problems is you probably running in this Daniel is that if you are someone who thinks about this and reads about it and wrestles with it struggles with it you could if you get to feel kind of lonely because when you try to talk to someone else about it another Christian you just get this blank stare like they didn't even that's and they've never even thought about it and so if this could be a forum for these kinds of conversations so we know that we're not alone then I think that that's a good that's enough all right so we do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God obviously however that idea of the inspired Word of God doesn't have one obvious meaning so it's easy to say oh it's the inspired Word of God okay yes what does that mean though what does it actually mean and don't just spit talking points out I mean your doctrine what does it actually mean though there's a debate to be had and a debate has been had for centuries about what that means exactly and how that works the very simplistic sort of childish understanding is that God basically bent down from heaven and he said hey come over here and he audibly spoke the words of that would eventually be in the in the Bible he spoke those words to the writers of these various books and those writers just became essentially cosmic stenographers and they just wrote down what God was telling him they said well what was that you that you said their God about okay let me write that down and that is not how it worked as we grow and we study and we mature we begin to see that that's just not the way the Bible came together the Bible is a collection of different types of literature across many centuries written in many different regions and written for many different reasons to many different sorts of audiences and written by people who did not know that they were writing something that would eventually be compiled in a book that we now call the Bible that's the reality and we also know this is the important part we know that many of these writers used sources or probably they all did that used sources they conducted investigations they went through a process that would have looked like a very human process and they incorporated oral tradition and they incorporated all these different things Luke you know Luke even tells us at the beginning of his gospel that he conducted interviews and he did research and so on Luke does not say that Oh an angel came down from heaven and told me all this and I wrote it down he doesn't say that he says he went in and he tried to investigate and figure out what the heck's going on and this is what he came up with he tells us that so what does it mean to say that the Bible is inspired it means that God somehow guided that human process and that everything in the Bible is in the Bible because God wants it to be I think it's sort of as simple as that I think that's the best way of looking at it everything is in because God wants it there I think it's better to say that than to say something like everything in the Bible is accurate I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is not accurate but I am saying that there are many different forms and genres of literature in the Bible and for some of those genres to call them accurate just makes no sense what does it mean to say that the Song of Solomon is accurate what does it mean to say the Psalms are accurate what does it even mean to say that you know the book of James is accurate you know when you've got poetry or you know essentially sermons which is which is what the the epistles do letters to call them accurate it just it's true in a certain sense but it's not exactly the words you would use like you're not going to listen to you know Mozart sympathy sympathy Simmonds be symphony now you listen to Mozart and say well that that's a very accurate like that doesn't mean anything what you're gonna say is that it's beautiful it's deep it's meaningful you can use a lot of great words to describe it not necessarily accurate so III think that the the best way of putting it is as I said it's there because that's God wanted it to be there because we will get something from it that we need to get from it and what that thing is will be different depending on what book were reading so how do we defend that notion well I agree that you can't defend it by demanding that the person you're talking to believe the Bible on faith you can't defend the Bible by using the Bible this is something that Christians try to do and it's kind of embarrassing because it's it's they're essentially trying to prove the veracity of the Bible by pointing out that the Bible claims that it has veracity which first of all is is circular reasoning to say well why should I believe the Bible because of says it's true yeah but why should I believe that well because the Bible is true you see it's a circle and that just that's not good reasoning you're not gonna be able to convince anyone that way and the second problem is that the Bible actually makes no claims about itself because no as I said no one who contributed to the Bible knew that they were contributing to something that we now call the Bible none of them knew that so I think we have to be able to launch a more sophisticated defense which is a whole other subject I could talk about for 10 hours but I think that defense has to be historical philosophical theological literary spiritual all of it we have to be able to launch a defense that is multifaceted and that engages on all of these different levels and what what we certainly know is not the case is we can't convince someone that the Bible is true by just throwing it at them and beating them over the head with it and say the Bible says that the Bible says it and that's a stereotype it's a cliche but that is what some Christians do and it is so incredibly ineffective and they're making fools of themselves you asked about what you call the Apocrypha that would be a collection of books in the Old Testament Tobit Judith wisdom Maccabees couple others I don't remember

Proper Review
Mar 22nd 2019
Full review >>
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry