Ep. 1608 - The New York Times Attacked Me In The Dumbest Way
45:13 Share

It's back. One last chance. This time, it's more important than ever. Get 47% off your new Daily Wire Plus annual membership with code FIGHT. Then make sure you're with us on election night. Our full coverage starts at 6 p.m. Eastern. We'll be live all night until the winner is declared, giving real coverage in real time on the night. It really matters. Dailywire.com slash subscribe. Use code FIGHT for 47% off your new Daily Wire Plus membership. Be here to watch history unfold live on Tuesday. November 5th.

The night America's fate is decided. As the final votes are counted and a nation waits for the outcome, join us to break down the live election results as only Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, and Jeremy Boren can. With special guests appearing live in studio, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Dennis Prager, and Spencer Klayman. Daily Wire, Election Night 2024.

Get real-time results and exclusive insights from the most trusted names in conservative media. This is more than an election. It's history in the making. Join the Daily Wire as each vote is counted, each state called, and each race decided. With just four days to go before Election Day, the New York Times is officially campaigning to get your favorite cigar salesman's podcast kicked off YouTube.

They're also campaigning to get at least eight other conservative shows kicked off YouTube. I think this means the Times has a hunch about who's going to win the election. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. J.D. Vance does everything.

Joe Rogan's show over three hours, well over three hours. We have the highlights. There's so much more to say. First, though, text Knowles to 98 98 98. We have a big election coming up. There's a lot at stake. Four years of a conservative presidency will not be enough to turn the tide on our thirty five trillion dollar national debt. You don't have much control over the elections outcome. You can protect your savings by diversifying now into gold.

from my friends at birch gold that's right for millennia gold has stood firm in the face of greedy governments economic upheavals and global strife it can protect you now birch gold will help you convert an ira or 401k into an ira in physical gold the best news doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket

I have a decent chunk of my portfolio in gold, and I'll tell you, I'm pretty happy about that, especially right now. Things are looking pretty good. Gold at all-time highs. Text NOLS, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898. Get your free info kit on gold, and then diversify. Especially as we head into the election, people are looking at some economic turmoil, and it's when they look to diversify. As the exclusive gold partner of The Daily Wire for eight years, you can trust Birch Gold, as I do, to protect your savings. Text NOLS, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898.

today. Speaking of luxurious things, I also have to tell you about these smoking jackets. You can see if you're watching the show right now, you can see I'm wearing the black smoking jacket. A couple of days ago, Mayflower rolled out a project we'd been working on for about six months. That is a super premium smoking jacket made in partnership with Shepherds, a company owned in part by Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker. This jacket uses the finest mills velvet and

uh, in all of Italy. Uh, it has working sleeve buttonholes. It's customized to your measurements, to the slope of your shoulders. It's got this beautiful Bemberg, uh, liner with a Mayflower repetition inside. It's got your initials embroidered in it. It's, uh, the real deal. It's, it's good stuff. So I mentioned on the show a couple of days ago, I said, I think these are going to sell quickly. Um, so if you want it, I would order it now.

I was even more correct than I thought I would be. We basically sold out within 24 hours, even though it's not as though the jacket is inexpensive. The jacket's, I think, about $895. However, as I pointed out, anything even remotely comparable to this quality off the rack would easily be double that price. When you add in the made-to-measure, you're looking more like triple or quadruple that price. So I said, if you want it, look,

$900 smocking jackets. Not everyone wants one. That's not for everyone. But if you are the kind of person who does want that, I would order it quickly because they're going to disappear. And that is exactly what happened. So the good news is, if you did want the jacket, we spoke to Shepard's and the way it worked, we ordered a certain amount of the velvet from this superb mill in Italy. And so I said, do we have any extra fabric? Is there any way we can make it squeeze out even more?

a handful more jackets. And the answer was yes, we have enough fabric left for six black smoking jackets and we have enough fabric left for one burgundy smoking jacket. So we are talking like none left. We have very, very few. If you want it though, I know a number of people were disappointed that they weren't able to get it in time. If you want it,

You can get it. These will disappear, you know, immediately probably. So go get it now, MayflowerCigars.com, if you want your jacket. And to celebrate, you know, we did the jacket not really to make money. We're not really going to make much money at all on this jacket. We did it more to celebrate the first year of Mayflower Cigars, which has been very successful. And so I want to celebrate that with a little Mayflower on the show. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Delish. I also want to celebrate...

something that seems like a little bit of a dubious honor. This is the New York Times coming after your boy. I was tagged in this yesterday. It's an article from the Times. Election falsehoods take off on YouTube as it looks the other way. And the New York Times has this header picture with nine conservatives on it.

That would be people from all representing all parts of the conservative space. A little bit on cable news, a little bit associated with the Trump campaign, a little bit, you know, you got Tucker, you got Ben, you got all, you got Tim Pool, you got, but right in the middle of it is your boy, is me. So I said, huh, what did I say?

that the New York Times considers an election falsehood because I try to be rather precise in my speech. So I said, I don't think I've said anything that they could get me on. So I read through the article. Well, I had someone print me out a copy of the article because obviously I don't want to subscribe to the New York Times. And I looked through and the answer is they didn't get me on anything. They didn't cite a single supposed election falsehood that I've uttered. They didn't even mention me in the article.

They once again, I am being used merely as a pretty face. They put me right in the center of their election falsehood banner. They've made me the face of election falsehood. According to the New York Times, they don't even mention me because they can't because I haven't said anything false about the election. What they are doing is obviously just trying to get my show and all these other shows kicked off of YouTube.

You hear the headline, election falsehoods take off on YouTube as it looks the other way. And then here's the kicker. I did start to read some of the article. Within months, the largest video platform became a home for election conspiracy theories, half-truths and lies. They in turn became a source of revenue for YouTube, which announced growing quarterly ad sales on Tuesday. Okay, what's the New York Times' evidence for this? During four tumultuous months of this year's presidential campaign, researchers from Media Matters for America,

A group that monitors information from conservative sources examine the consequences of YouTube's about face. This is the most embarrassing thing. I mean, look, it's embarrassing that the New York Times made the centerpiece of their election falsehoods claims. Someone whom they can't cite even once for election falsehoods. That's embarrassing. But even more embarrassing is the New York Times. The Gray Lady used to be the paper of record is citing Media Matters, a Democrat operative organization.

to they're outsourcing their journalism to Media Matters. That is so humiliating for the New York Times. I'm not surprised because the quality of their journalism has plummeted in recent years, but that is absolutely pathetic. So they go on

Times says, yeah, you know, Media Matters, it has a point of view, but the New York Times has independently verified the research. Oh, yeah. OK. Apparently you didn't verify very well. This is amazing. The New York Times independently verifies research examining all of the videos identified by Media Matters, determining whether YouTube placed ads or fact check labels on them. OK, so you're hold on. That could mean a couple of things. You're saying you independently verified that YouTube, which also suppresses conservatives, is.

agreed with Media Matters, which endeavors to suppress conservatives. And then you reported this in the New York Times, which is campaigning to suppress conservatives. Okay, I guess that could be the case, but that doesn't prove anything. It doesn't actually prove that the claims made were false.

But furthermore, you say, oh, the New York Times has independently verified all of this. Oh, yeah? Well, sorry, you got to excuse my skepticism because you put my face in the middle of it and you can't cite me even once. So I don't know, man. It doesn't look like your independent verification is all that trustworthy. It's not just the New York Times. The Washington Post has a piece out. In the podcast election, top shows cast doubt on integrity of the 2024 vote.

In the podcast election, now you can't see this is the printable version, but on the online version, it's just Ben Shapiro's face. So here, in the New York Times piece, two out of the nine heads they cite are Daily Wire heads in the Washington Post piece. The one person whose picture is the banner is a Daily Wire host. They're coming for the Daily Wire. They're calling this the podcast election. Notice in the New York Times piece, they don't include anyone from Fox News up there. I'm not making any point about Fox News. I'm just pointing out

They're coming after the podcasters. They're coming after the streamers. They're coming after the people in new media. They're coming after the people who are on the cutting edge of broadcast media. As TV goes the way of radio, that kind of declines. They still have some power, but it's on the decline. The New York Times and the Washington Post coordinating, obviously, together on basically the same story coming out the exact same day, going after the exact same people.

They're trying to suppress the conservatives. But then the question is, why are they doing it with four or five days to go till the election? What's the point of that? You're not going to, YouTube's not going to take us down three days before the election, I don't think. I think this is a play for the future. I think the New York Times and the Washington Post are concerned that Trump is going to win. I have it on good authority that people in the upper echelons of the Democrat establishment think that Trump is going to win.

And so they are trying to, one, point to people who they can blame. They're going to blame me. They're going to blame Tim Poole. They're going to blame Steve Dace. They're going to blame all these people here. Ben Shapiro. They want to blame people for it. And they want to suppress the conservatives in the future. Now, if it is a squeaker and Kamala somehow pulls it out or if...

The count goes Kamala's way in any case. Then this is going to be an opportunity to say, oh, look how close it was. We can't let it get that close again. We need to cut off the ad revenue to the conservative broadcasters who are moving the needle. That'll kill the conservative media, the future of the conservative media, and then that'll let Democrats win elections again. That's what this is all about, without question. But there is something hopeful here, which is that I think the way you get these articles is because the liberal establishment thinks...

that Trump very well will win. Now, speaking of election falsehoods, I don't think it's us. It's not the people in this picture spreading the election falsehoods. It's the establishment media itself. There's a story from the New York Post citing a local ABC affiliate, WNEP, ABC 16, which ran a chyron saying that Kamala Harris beat Donald Trump, 52 to 47.

This was really bizarre. Reporting 100%, Democrat Kamala Harris, 52%. How many votes? 3,293,712 to Donald Trump's 47%, 2,997,793. What? The election hasn't happened yet. Oh, well, according to the New York Post, ABC mistakenly aired the election results declaring Harris the winner of the key state of Pennsylvania.

But this was just a mistake. They were just testing their system. WNEP said the results came up on the screen in error. They were randomly generated as part of a test. Okay. They shouldn't have appeared on screen. Whoopsie-daisy, no big deal. That's the fear, guys. The fear is that the results are going to be randomly generated. I can believe the excuse that they're working on their graphics packages, and I can believe the excuse that producers are going to misfire. What worries me and other people is

is that the results are going to be randomly generated and that they're not going to reflect reality. If you really wanted to downplay any fears of rigging, many more people expect any rigging that could occur to be rigging in favor of the Democrats against the Republicans. Then why not throw up the test graphic and say Trump wins?

That would still not assuage a lot of people's fears because people don't believe in the establishment media anymore. They don't have credibility anymore. But it would be better than throwing up a graphic of randomly generated numbers in the crucial swing state to say that Kamala Harris won and then say, oh, whoopsie daisy, never mind. But believe us on Tuesday. No, four days from now, we'll have it all tucked away. This is why, this is why.

The Washington Post is not endorsing this election. This is why Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post,

recognizes that the WAPO, that the whole establishment media are facing a crisis. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to supremecoup.com slash Knowles. The radical left is plotting a Supreme Court coup. They're not even trying to hide it anymore. These progressive ideologues want to eliminate the court's conservative majority by packing it with their own handpicked justices. It's not court reform. It's a blatant power grab to get the outcomes they want. Here's the frightening part.

If one party controls the House, Senate, and presidency come January, they could restructure the court overnight. With a simple majority vote and a president's signature, their plan becomes reality. But there is hope. First Liberty is leading the charge to protect the Supreme Court from this radical plan. They're fighting to preserve the legitimacy of the court and the separation of powers that safeguards our freedom. Don't let them Venezuela your United States. Go to SupremeCoup.com slash Knowles. That is SupremeCoup.com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S.

to learn how you can help stop the left's takeover of the Supreme Court. The future is in your hands. Right now, go to supremecoup.com slash Knowles. This is one of the biggest issues at stake in this election. Supremecoup.com slash Knowles. Jeff Bezos is defending the Washington Post's decision not to endorse a candidate in this campaign. He wrote an op-ed, and he pointed out that Americans no longer believe the media.

He said, in the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. This year's Gallup poll, we managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working. I challenge you to find one instance in the 11 years, this is Bezos writing, the 11 years in which he's owned the Washington Post, where I have prevailed upon anyone at the Post to favor my own interests. It has not happened.

While I do not and will not push my personal interests, I will not allow this paper to stay on autopilot and fade into irrelevance. Overtaken by unresearched podcasts and social media barbs, but not without a fight, it's too important. So you got two big plays here from the establishment media within days of each other, and they seem to be on opposite ends of things. On the one hand, you have Bezos saying, we want to earn back the respect of readers, so we're not going to endorse Kamala Harris. We're not going to endorse anyone because you don't trust us anyway.

On the other hand, you have the Washington Post, that very same paper, and the New York Times saying YouTube needs to censor conservatives. We need to take down these conservative podcasts. On the one hand, he seems like he's trying to be nonpartisan. On the other, the very same paper seems hyperpartisan. How do you reconcile the two? Easily. It's that headline from the Washington Post. In the podcast election, dot, dot, dot. In the podcast election. Don't forget, of all the conservatives they're trying to take down in the New York Times,

There's one big face missing. It's the biggest podcaster in the world. That's Joe Rogan. Trump's appearance on Rogan has garnered tens of millions of views. J.D. Vance went on Rogan yesterday. We'll get to it. This is the podcast election. The podcasts are much, much, much more influential than the cable news shows in this election. This is the first time that's ever been true.

So Bezos, in his op-ed about defending the integrity of the Washington Post, he says, we in the establishment media, not just cable news, but newspapers, are having our lunch eaten by the podcasters, by the streamers, by the digital platforms. And we need to stop that. We hate those guys. We want to control the narrative still. So on the one hand, we're going to try not to seem so hyper-partisan. On the other, we're going to try to kill off all the competition. And who's the competition? Right here. The New York Times put all of our pictures up.

right in the header of their article. Now, some in the establishment media don't get the message. So you got CNN's Abby Phillip is arguing with Jeff Bezos. She says, no, no, no. The problem is not that people don't trust the media, so the media have to react to that. The media need to double down in their partisan attacks. She says, the reason people don't trust the media is because of the politicians.

I want to recognize that for all the flaws of the mainstream media, and we have a lot of them, it's not just the media's fault that trust has been declining for decades. It's also decades of attacks by politicians. That is the main issue is that like, I mean, yeah, it could be that the Washington Post is endorsing candidates or it could be that there are millions of voters who believe lying politicians who tell them lies, knowing that they are. I mean, that could be the problem, too.

This is Principal Skinner on The Simpsons. Hmm, is it possible that I'm out of touch? No, no, it is the children who must be wrong. No, no, it's not. We haven't done anything to destroy our credibility. It's not our fault that people don't trust us. No, no, no, it's Trump's fault. It's the politicians' fault. Who are the politicians? The politicians are the representatives of the people. The

And specifically the politicians that they're talking about here, I think they're talking about Donald Trump. They're talking about the more populist politicians. Those are especially the representatives of the people. They're not the representatives of the establishment that's removed from the people. They're the choices of the people. So what CNN is saying here, Stelter and that woman, what they're saying is, no, no, no. The reason that people don't trust us anymore, the fault for that lies with the people, not with us.

It's their fault that they're so stupid and gullible and angry. They're garbage, these people. You garbage people. Read our newspaper, you garbage people. Trust us. I don't think so. So this is how you get someone like...

Rob Reiner here. I love this. Rob Meathead from All in the Family. He posts, the Washington Post editorial board is a disgrace for the newspaper that exposed the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandal to not take a position and endorse a candidate in the most consequential presidential election in 165 years is reprehensible. I love this. He's citing the Nixon example. He's saying, look, the Washington Post led the way in getting rid of Richard Nixon. But I don't know. I think the whole Watergate scandal is going to be considered rather differently.

by the light of history than it was at the time. Because when I look at the Watergate scandal, first of all, pales in comparison to anything we saw from Barack Obama or Joe Biden in recent years. Really, it was just that some campaign operatives didn't tape a door correctly for the sort of dirty tricks that every campaign has played for just about all of history. But what it looks like to me is you had Richard Nixon, one of the most popularly reelected presidents ever in American history,

You had Richard Nixon ousted by a deep state coup led by the Washington Post, which was the propaganda arm for the deep state. It was a federal agent who was leaking this information. And then the Washington Post ran with it as the arm of that Washington establishment that had hated Richard Nixon for decades because Richard Nixon routed out commies in the State Department, notably Alger Hiss, an actual card-carrying communist who was instrumental in the founding of the UN and in crafting a lot of American policy.

That's what it looks like to me. It says, can you imagine that the organization, the newspaper that led a deep state coup to oust one of the most popular presidents in American history, can you imagine that they might do something underhanded? Yeah, wow. Shocking to me, isn't it? There's so much more to say first, though. Go to lumen.me. Use code Knowles. It is tough to prioritize your health, especially if you're not sure where to start. However, it's not just about making a decision. It's about making a commitment to a better quality of life. That is why I love Lumen.

Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It is a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. All you got to do is breathe into your lumen. First thing in the morning, you will know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. For me, I need things to be simple, okay? If I'm going to take care of my health, it's got to be real simple. That's what I love about lumen. It makes it simple. You wake up, you breathe into it, and you get all this information on your phone. You don't need to go hire a nutritionist. You don't need to go hire your trainer to tell you about this, that, and the other thing.

Lumen does all of it for you, crafts a plan for the day. If you want to take the next step in improving your health, I strongly recommend lumen.me slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. It's got the Knowles stamp of approval. And if you use that code, you will get 15% off your Lumen. Lumen, L-U-M-E-N dot M-E. Use code Knowles for 15% off your purchase. Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode.

My favorite comment yesterday is from Jaimea523, who says, vote so your husband can't afford anything so you can complain when he doesn't buy you enough. Yes, that's the point of the Julia Roberts Democrat ad. J.D. Vance does Joe Rogan. J.D.,

has come out. It's a three and a half hour interview. I'm not going to get to all of it. It's worth listening to JD. The big takeaways are that JD sounds really, really intelligent. He sounds really, really educated. He sounds really in command of his facts. He's a normal guy. The libs tried to make him weird. That was the word they tried to stick to him. That fell apart. They dropped that attack because ironically, when you hear this guy talk,

He sounds so normal. He sounds so much more normal than other politicians, certainly compared to Tim Walz or Kamala Harris. So they ended up dropping that attack. And this, I think, was really the final nail in that coffin. Why did J.D. go on Rogan? Because the Rogan interview was so good for Trump. And it's going to be really good for Vance. And it's going to be good for the Trump-Vance ticket. The only clip I want to pull out is this bit where Joe and Vance are talking about

the transgender ideology, which is a huge political winner for Republicans. It flipped Virginia red for Glenn Youngkin. It helped reelect Ron DeSantis in Florida by an even wider margin than he would have otherwise. And it's just a winner. People who disagree on all sorts of things, abortion, bioethics, marriage, sexual revolution, people who are all across the political spectrum in America can agree it is wrong to castrate little kids. We're not even talking about transgender ideology for adults.

My views on that are probably different than a lot of liberals' views on that. But we pretty much can all agree it is wrong to castrate kids. And so they hammered this issue. And there are even people who wave the rainbow flag. There are even LGBT-identifying people who say, this transing the kids stuff is really awful. And J.D. Vance made a comment that made waves because it seems so out of step for many Republican politicians. Some were calling it a contradiction in terms. I think it's politically pretty smart, though. And I think it's

incisive and correct. I think that, frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if me and Trump won just the normal gay guy vote because, again, they just wanted to be left the hell alone. And now you have all this crazy stuff on top of it that they're like, we didn't want to give pharmaceutical products to nine-year-olds who are transitioning their genders. We just wanted to be left the hell alone. That phrase, the normal gay guy vote,

That's the phrase that is resonating and that some people are going to take issue with because people are going to say, well, that's a contradiction in terms. No knock on our friends who are a little light in the loafers, but that's not normal, right? That's an abnormal kind of behavior. It's not normal by ideal standards. It's not normal even by behavioral standards. It's abnormal. So what's the normal gay guy vote? You know what it is. You know what the normal gay guy vote is. I'm from New York.

I went to the most homosexual university in the world. I lived in Los Angeles, worked around show business. I have known a disproportionate number of people who are a little eccentric in their behaviors and desires. You know what he's talking about here. He's talking about something that is, by the way, not even just rewinding the clock 10 or 15 years. He's talking about a perennial fact. I'm about as traditionalist as they come. However,

It is simply a fact that throughout all of history, certainly going back to ancient Athens, there have been fellows who, you know, engage in some aberrant behavior. That's just been the case. And there have always been kind of Paul Lind characters who, you know, confirmed bachelors. Don't really want to get married. You don't really ask too much about it. That's existed. You know, it's a fallen world. There are all sorts of eccentric things that take place. And that was broadly, you know, kind of understood.

Even when there were laws against that kind of behavior, they were very rarely enforced. They really only existed as a matter of setting standards and setting norms. But in the West, we're not the people who go up and they say, are you a little light in the loafers or are we going to toss you off a rooftop? They do that in other cultures, but we've never really done that in the West. Right.

When he says, look, there's some people who they just want to do what they do and be left alone. They don't want to parade it in the street. They don't want to change the laws. They don't want to pretend that marriage is something different than it is. They just kind of want to be left alone and not bothered. And that's existed for a long time. And, you know, okay, this is the world. All right, that's how it's been forever. That's different than marriage.

The militant activists who want to ram these kind of crazy ideologies down your kids' throats in elementary school, okay? That's very different. And the guys who just are kind of, you know, they want to do their own thing. It's a little different than other people do, but they're not trying to make an issue about it. They just want to do their own thing. I think J.D.'s right. I think those guys are going to vote for Trump. By and large, I think they're going to vote for Trump. The militant activists who want to redefine reality, those people are going to vote for Kamala.

The more normal guys, they're going to vote for Trump. No question. Now, the Trump Vance ticket is getting all sorts of support, not just from the so-called normal gay guys, but also from prominent Democrats, not just Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi, but also Bill Clinton. I don't think it's right to say that people have to vote for Donald Trump because the economy was better there. I don't believe that.

I don't think, now listen here, listen here, folks. You're going to hear a lot of people tell you that the economy was a lot better under, uh,

Donald Trump. And it was. It was a lot better. Okay. But you don't have to vote for Trump just because your inflation was way down and wages were rising for the first time in 40 years. And because things were just so great and we were so rich and it was awesome, man, it was awesome. But you don't, I do not believe you have to vote for Trump just because of how awesome it was when he was president. Feel your pain. Brutal.

brutal for Kamala. I don't think that Bill Clinton is intentionally undermining Kamala Harris here, but he is undermining her. I think Joe Biden is intentionally undermining Kamala Harris because he hates her and she took his job and she launched her presidential campaign calling him a racist. I think he truly hates that woman and wants her to lose. Bill Clinton, I think, wants Kamala to win because I think he's trying to get an ambassadorship for his daughter, Chelsea. That's at least the scuttlebutt in the DC reporting. So I think he's trying to help her, but Bill Clinton recognizes voters aren't stupid.

Kamala thinks voters are stupid. Joe Biden, to some degree, thinks voters are stupid. Bill Clinton respects voters. You got to give him that. He might lie to your face, but he thinks you're relatively clever. So he's going to try to do a good job lying. And if he can, he's going to try to work with the facts to spin them in such a way that they seem plausible. Bill Clinton respects voters. And he knows that voters know that the economy is horrible right now.

that eggs are much more expensive than they used to be, that everything is 22.5% to maybe 30% more expensive than it was when Joe Biden took office. And they know that Kamala's promising exactly the same policy. She said she wouldn't have differed from Biden in any way. So he knows, he's not going to say, no, the economy's been awesome under Biden and Harris, and she's so good. No, he's going to say, look, yeah, the economy is terrible, and it was way better under Trump, but

hmm, just think about how great abortion is or whatever. Whatever it is that Kamala can offer that Trump cannot. He's like, forget about the economy. It's kind of ironic too, because the motto of his 92 campaign was, it's the economy, stupid. That was James Carville's line, one of his top advisors. And yet, now Bill Clinton, the only thing he can run is, it's not the economy, stupid. It is still the economy, stupid, but please think about something else. Now, speaking of people who are a little

who do not respect voters quite as much and who are also making weak arguments for Kamala Harris, the Avengers have assembled. The Avengers, I think I watched one of those movies. I don't like the superhero movies, and I really don't like those with Mark Ruffalo and all these insufferable libs. But they just came out and they put together their very best version of a commercial for Kamala.

How about we start with what our voting plans are going to be, who we're going to bring to the polls with us, that sort of thing. I think Kamala Harris needs a catchphrase. How about, I'm down with democracy. It's just clean and simple. Okay, I like that. It's hard to argue with that. Kamala Harris down with democracy. Oh, yeah. I'm Kamala Harris, and I say...

with democracy. I don't know if that sounds the way we want it to sound, though. I think we just need... Can we get some production, though? Jarvis! My name's not Jarvis, but whatever.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, that's right. Hmm. Down with democracy. Down with democracy. Is that what we mean, though? Yeah, together we're going to tear down democracy. Will you stop playing heroic music under yourselves? I'm Kamala Harris, and I am down with democracy. Did I sound enough like her on that one? That was great. How many Golden Globes have you been nominated for? I'm just curious. Yes! All right, that was awesome.

It's a little weak. It's a little weak, right? These guys, they want to do an ad for Kamala Harris. They won't even all get in the same room. I think most, if not all of them live in LA. It's not like they're that far from each other, but they do it as a Zoom thing. So it's a little weak sauce. And then, but what's the bit? The bit is they're saying I'm down with democracy. Well, shortness to down with democracy. Oh, ha ha. That makes it sound like Kamala hates democracy, that she's the undermining of democracy. Ha ha ha. Vote for Kamala anyway. In jokes, there is often a little kernel of truth.

The reason this joke works is that Kamala's candidacy, Kamala's nomination, does in fact represent an undermining of democracy because no one voted for her. All the Democrats voted for Biden and then they just booted Biden out. The party elites booted Biden out and replaced him without any voting with Kamala. So the joke is true. If you vote for Kamala, you are actively undermining democracy.

Ha ha ha. Isn't that funny? Anyway, because this is what the Democrats are saying. The real Democrat argument going all the way back up to the New York Times trying to kick your boy and other conservatives off of YouTube and the Washington Post trying to do exactly the same thing. And the Harris campaign, the Democrats changing the election rules in some ways illegally in 2020. The point of all of it, if you if you if you got a couple of drinks in them and had them be really candid with you, they would say, well, look.

Sure, this is kind of undemocratic what we're doing, replacing our nominee, kicking out the guy that everyone voted for and replacing this woman, replacing him with this woman that no one voted for. But if we want to save democracy, we have to undermine democracy right now. That's what they're saying. To save democracy, we have to imprison Donald Trump.

To save democracy, we have to keep people from even being able to vote for Donald Trump by kicking him off the ballot. To save democracy, we need to kick the conservatives off YouTube. To save democracy, we need to undermine democracy. That's their real argument here. And it's a ridiculous argument in this case. There's no way a Kamala Harris presidency would strengthen democracy. But that is their argument.

Because ultimately, by the way, what they really mean by democracy is not allowing the people to have a say. They're blaming the people for not believing the mainstream media. That's the people's fault. Everything's the people's fault. What they mean is liberalism. And when there's a disagreement between the people and liberalism,

They're going to pick liberalism every time. Our box office hit, Am I Racist, is streaming exclusively on DailyWire. Plus, right now, get 47% off with a new membership with code FIGHT. Want to know how Matt Walsh pulled it off? Well, he breaks it all down with exclusive bonus content, taking you behind the scenes on the greatest troll against the libs in history. Plus, there's a deleted Johnny the Walrus scene that Matt did not show in theaters. The only way to see it is on DailyWire. Plus, get 47% off now, dailywire.com slash subscribe, code FIGHT.

Finally, finally, I've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mailbag. Our mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk. Go to puretalk.com slash Knowles. Can it be LAS today? Switch to a qualifying plan. Get one year free of Daily Wire Plus Insider. Take it away. Hi, Michael. Thank you so much for all that you do. Love this show. So I'll make this quick. I am 30. I am currently at a crossroads in my life. I have been pursuing a career. However, it doesn't hold the significance of

that I've thought it would because obviously I want to get married. I want to have children. That's very important to me. But I'm single and I'm trying to meet someone and I'm trying to make that the priority in my life. So my question to you, is it wrong to almost forsake the career that my family's been supporting me in and helping me financially to pursue a family? Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you so much. God bless.

No, it's not wrong. It's right. Obviously, you know that answer. The way you're asking me, you're just asking me to affirm that, and I agree with you. You say, well, my family has been supporting me in this career. They've been giving me money even to help support my career. Okay, why have they been doing that?

What's the purpose of the career? What's the point of the career? And what's the point of all your work toward the career? And what's the point of your family's support of your work toward the career? The point is your happiness. The point is your flourishing. The point is you're living a good life. And what you're saying is I've now realized that my career is not the be all and end all. The career is not in itself conducing toward giving me a good life. The career is not making me happy. Family.

is much more likely to make me happy. And so I'd like to maybe work a little bit less and maybe not quite make partner at the big firm, but also not work 80 hours a week so that I have time to go on a date and find a husband and get married and have kids. And that's going to make me happier. Do that.

That's the point. The only reason to have even pursued the career in the first place is as an instrument in the furtherance of your flourishing and your happiness. If it's not achieving that, as it will not in and of itself, almost certainly, then you got to change course a little bit. It's the C.S. Lewis point that the man who's going down the wrong road and then stops and turns around and goes back the other direction,

is more progressive than the man who just keeps moving forward and forward forever. Because progress is dependent upon some end that you're seeking, obviously. If you said, wow, I'm just totally flourishing my career. I really have no interest in marriage or children. I'm the unicorn. You know, I'm the rare person who really, and there are people like that. And marriage is not for everyone. Kids are not for everyone. The religious life is not for everyone. But if you're that rare person, okay. But for most people,

They're going to come to the conclusion you've come to. And then the question is, are they going to have the wisdom and the courage to follow that insight and maybe give up a little bit of the career and pursue what will make them happy or not? Will they stubbornly and stupidly go down the path that's making them unhappy? Next question.

Hi Michael, you mentioned that you're close friends with someone who is liberal, and I'm curious how you manage that dynamic. My husband and I have lost quite a few friends over the past year after openly sharing our conservative views, which has made me hesitant to form new connections, especially with people who may hold more liberal or far-left beliefs.

What advice would you offer for building and maintaining friendships with liberals? I'd love to hear your thoughts on how you navigate those differences. By the way, I hope you're still enjoying the Trump Perfection Era t-shirt I made and gave you at CPAC. Looking forward to your response. Thanks so much, Michael. Thank you for the marvelous t-shirt. That was absolutely wonderful. I vividly recall you were giving it to me at CPAC. I am friends with liberals.

I'm from New York. I went to a very liberal university. I lived in LA. I am friends with liberals, but I have lost friends. I've lost a number of friends, especially as I've gotten a little bit more of a public profile as the show's done well and the books have done well. That even more than my, my views haven't changed all that much. I've become more conservative. My views have deepened and developed, but they haven't really fundamentally changed all that much. So I don't think it's the development of my views. I think it's the, uh,

The undeniability for some of my liberal friends to say, oh, gosh, he's really out there. He's really saying that thing on YouTube or TV or something. I really, and they will end a friendship sometimes. I've lost friends. I still have plenty of liberal friends, but I've lost a number of liberal friends. If you lose friends over politics, it will be the liberals ending the friendship 999 times out of 1000.

If friendships are to be lost over politics, it will be the liberals ending the friendship with the Republicans, with the conservatives. Conservatives don't really do that. If you meet people who never interact with anyone of the opposite political persuasion, it is most likely to be liberals who don't know Republicans, who don't spend any time with Republicans or conservatives. It will be the liberals who cannot tolerate being friends with conservatives rather than the conservatives not tolerating the liberals.

999 times out of a thousand. So what can you do? You can be winsome. You can, you know, have some humor. You can, you know, be tolerant to a reasonable degree. You can agree to disagree on certain things. You can focus on whatever. But at a certain point, if the liberals don't want to be friends with you, there's nothing you can say. You don't need to beg for their friendship. You don't need to plead with them or grovel. If they don't want to be your friend, then okay, they don't have to be your friend. But most of the time, the sad fact is the choice will not be yours.

whether or not to end that friendship. It'll be the liberals. It's a pity. It wasn't always totally like that, but it is today. Next question.

When I was attending grad school, my composition professor, I'm a music student at this time, turned to the class and said, "If you're looking for an objective way to measure beauty, it's whatever unifies opposites successfully." When I heard this, I rejected it because it sounded like a bunch of Hegelian dialectics to me, which is just neo-Marxism. But ever since then, I've come to learn that he was actually right. I'm still a musician. I'm a full-time musician. Every piece of art that I consume operates dialectically. And I think Andrew Klavan understands that fiction operates dialectically.

I think the mistake that leftists make is that they try to force dialectical values on top of the real world and morality and politics and history. And I think conservatives tend to shy away from the arts and they tend to shy away from dialectics and reject it completely. I think that conservatives should recognize that art operates dialectically and art is basically something false, but nevertheless says something true if it's good. What are your thoughts?

I respect that insight. I respect that you have had that insight. I don't really agree with any of that. I don't. Even, you know, Disson Hegel. Hegel's difficult to read and understand. But, you know, Hegel is not just doing Marx or neo-Marxism or whatever. Hegel comes before Marx. But even that, I don't think art is necessarily dialectic or reconciling opposites. I think...

You asked about beauty. What is beauty? I think I go with Thomas Aquinas on most things. Beauty is that which pleases when seen and not just seen meaning noticed with the eyes, but seen, you know, as in beheld in the mind. That beauty is that which pleases when seen. And there's some debate over whether or not beauty is a transcendental like, you know, goodness or truth or, but that's it. Beauty is that which pleases when seen.

And I think that that's a lot simpler than, you know, there can be some beauty in reconciling apparent opposites, not real opposites, but apparent opposites, like mercy and justice within God. God has both perfect mercy and perfect justice. Those are, from our mere mortal standpoint, you know, apparent opposites, but they're reconciled in God. But I think it's simpler than that.

Beauty is that which pleases when seen. I can think of art that does not seem dialectic to me, but I can't think, or rather, I can think of beautiful things that are not dialectical, like a sunset or something, or a beautiful waterfall or something like that. But they all please when seen. There's so much more I want to get to, but we're going to have to do in the member block, and I have my friend Dinesh D'Souza on. The rest of the show continues now. You don't want to miss it. Go to dailywire.com. Use promo code Knowles. Get two months free on all annual plans. ♪

*Humming*