Back to episode — Episode 3013 CWSA 11/09/25
Context —
ing I sometimes don't understand when it comes from Republican ballots. There's a thing that people say and do that just seems like if that's where you're at, you shouldn't be talking about politics at all. You're not ready. And it goes like this. All the people who are making mistakes about the data are on the same side. You know what I mean? And she basically said some version of that, that she…
← Previous segment →the world and believe that when you know Ben Shapiro is talking that you're listening to a dumb guy? Come on. If you wanted to have an IQ off or an SAT off where let's say the ten smartest conservatives were put up against the ten smartest Democrats just to have some trivia or some kind of mental IQ contest, how do you think the conservatives would do? I think they'd do pretty well. Don't you? They got a Cernovich. Yes, they got some smart people too, right?
So I don't want to fall into my own trap. Democrats have very smart people. But if you don't understand that people can be wrong on both sides, then you should not even be in the conversation. Would you agree with that? If it's not your intention to find out which side is right and it's only your intention to make sure that your side looks right, what are you adding to the world? Like what's your value add there? Unless it's your job to do something like that and you get paid for it, that'd be different.
What was fun about this is that Jimmy Kimmel's wife is not really part of politics, but she said some of the most interesting and new things that I had to talk about. So I'm sure they're very nice people. I hear good things about them, actually.
The BBC, if you haven't seen this story, it's just mind-boggling. The BBC apparently is going to apologize, which means that they're admitting it happened, for deceptively editing President Trump's January 6 speech in an effort to make it look like he encouraged violence at the Capitol. What? How is this even real news? Are we so beaten up about how fake the news is that this is sort of a side story? Am I wrong that this is just a side story? That the BBC made up a narrative that just didn't happen and pasted together some clips and made it look like the opposite of what he said. That should sort of be the biggest story you've seen, except for all the other ones that are just insanely illegal looking. Certainly looks illegal.
Anyway, do you think an apology is going to save them because Trump's going to take the apology? Of course he's going to bank the apology, but he's going to use the apology to show that there's no question about fact. And then he's going to ask for something. He might sue them, get them to settle because they can't, they don't have a possibility of winning. They couldn't possibly win a lawsuit, I don't think. I mean, I'm no lawyer. You'll have to ask the lawyers.
But yeah, I got some kind of moths. Okay. I believe the moth either survived or is clinging to my hand as a nasty desiccated corpse. Okay. Looks good. Looks good.
All right. So looks like Trump's going to get another payd
Context —
ay from the BBC. According to an ex-user called Chaz Mizelle who's been in the past, he's been a chief of staff at Trump's DOJ, and he looked at some data and found that since 1963, listen to this, 75% of all nationwide injunctions have been against President Trump since 1963. 75% of all the ones done in the country for any reason were Trump. Now again, I didn't fact check this, so you might want…
Next segment → →