Pantsuits and Sniffles Aside, Glenn Points Out the Debate Crazy From Both Candidates

September 27, 2016

Writer

For the first time in election debate history, Glenn wasn't on pins and needles.

"I didn't have a horse in the race," Glenn said Tuesday on his radio program. "I just wanted to hear which one was going to win, which one had something to say."

Depending on the network, the proclaimed winner fluctuated. According to CNN, Hillary was the clear victor. Over at Fox News, Trump owned the night. Glenn had his own perspective about the political do-si-do seen in the first presidential debate.

"I guess if you're tired of the game and knowing exactly what people are going to say, this is the show for you," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these debatable questions:

• Is trumped up trickle-down focus-group approved?

• Did Hillary come out as a full-fledged socialist?

• Who did Trump blame for everything?

• Are people who say "The Cyber" completely out of touch?

• Will Millennials prefer Hillary or Donald after the debate?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: On the surface, I don't think there was a clear winner last night. But we're not surface dwellers. On the deeper level, I think there was a clear winner last night. And it was Donald Trump.

And let me explain why. I thought -- no, no, hear me out. I thought Donald Trump did a couple of things. I tried to watch this last night as somebody who didn't have a horse in the race -- because I don't. And I tried to watch this as somebody who has been trying to keep their head above water, knows that the country is in trouble, but doesn't really have a horse in the race.

They -- they -- they're just looking for somebody to fix it because they're in pain. And they're in pain that nobody is listening to them. Washington is hopelessly broken. It's nothing but the Republicans and the Democrats arguing with each other. I'm sick and tired of it. My job is going away. I'm losing my job. I know the banking and Wall Street is corrupt. And I know we're in big trouble. I know -- I couldn't tell you why, but I know that this is all bogus and something is coming that's bad. I'm sick and tired of the wars. I'm sick and tired of being told one thing and then doing another, when it comes to the wars. I am sick of hearing that there has been another mass shooting by a guy with an Islamic name, but we don't even mention that he's Islamic. We're not mentioning those things.

However, any time that anybody else is shot, we have to go for -- we will make up categories. A Hispanic white guy. We'll make up things to blame things on race. And we'll do everything we can to not even mention Islam.

I went with that attitude. And then on the other side, I also went with a young person that knows -- because this is -- this is the future. Everybody says, "Oh, you can't -- you're destroying our future?" Really? Really? Because the future are our children. The future are the millennials. And the millennials hate both of these guys. They don't believe in the Republicans. They don't believe in the Democrats. They don't believe in Donald Trump. Look at Donald Trump's millennial numbers. Ghost town. They don't believe in Hillary Clinton. Not as much of a ghost town, but moving towards a ghost town.

They don't believe in the system at all. And why should they? Why should they?

They see their parents who have lived their lives the right way being screwed. They see their parents living this American dream that has gotten them massively in debt. They know the world is changing, but they see -- they see people on television debating cyber security and referring to it as "the cyber."

"I don't know if we can ever fix the cyber." What the hell is that? Completely out of touch. Completely out of touch.

So I tried to watch it as somebody who is more prone to the right but not a partisan. Who is worried about all the things, quite honestly, as I am. And then I tried to watch it as a millennial at the same time, who doesn't agree with the answers that a conservative would give. But both of them are sick of the process.

Because that really honestly is the bulk of America. Everything else is 30 percent. Those people who are still playing the political game, I'm sorry, gang, but you're 30 percent. Everybody thinks talk radio is so powerful. No -- no, we're not. We're not even that powerful in our own circle.

You know, we've believed the press so long that talk radio, oh, it's changing the world. No, it's not. No, it's not. We're talking -- we're preaching to the choir. We have our own culture and our own big click. And we preach to the choir. And very few people, especially now, are stumbling in to see it. It's the same group of people. And we're talking to the same group of people every day. And they go from one show to the other, and that is what's happening.

We're not part of the culture. We're a subset of the culture. So outside of this culture and outside of the deep progressive -- I don't even know, institutional culture of the left, they're 30 percent. Average Americans are doing their job. Average Americans are getting up every day, and they're throwing their hands up and going, "What the hell is wrong with us?"

So I tried to watch as those people. And Hillary Clinton was the most likable I've ever seen her. And she was not likable. She was the most likable I've ever seen her. But I think it's because he is so unlikable. If you would have put him against -- if you would have put her against even Kasich, Kasich would have won. If you would have put her against -- yeah, unlikable. Untrustworthy. Unlikable. She was wearing -- very interesting, she was wearing a red pantsuit. Why was she wearing the red pantsuit? Because she needed to look powerful. She needed to look like a powerful woman who wasn't sick.

And I can move. And don't take -- please take the camera off me at the end when I'm bowing down or I'm trying to lean down to kiss somebody on the cheek because I look like I'm 8,000 years old. Take the camera off me. I'm wearing a red power suit.

And because this is a play, Donald Trump: I need to look credible, I need to look kind, I need to look honorable. I don't need to look powerful. Everybody knows I'm powerful. I need to wear a soft blue tie because that says respectability, that says honor, that says trustworthiness. And the game started there.

Hillary Clinton comes out, full-fledged socialist. Full-fledged socialist. Stunning to me. I've never -- I mean, anybody who was hoping for triangulation, woo, that's not happening.

She comes out and she talks with the old -- what was she? Trumped up trickle-down. Let me come up with a cute thing that we ran through some focus groups, okay? Because we got that 30 percent of the population that just are going to vote for me anyway, and I ran through a focus group, and we found out it would be funny to say, "Trumped up trickle-down economics, and it doesn't work."

So I'm going to tell you something new. Something very, very new. It's called socialism. And it hasn't worked anywhere in the world. And, okay, it's 170 years old now, but it's brand-new because it hasn't been tried by us. And this trumped up trickle-down economics just won't work.

How's the dial test doing? How's the dial testing doing?

Same old stuff over and over again. And, by the way, my dad is better than your dad because my dad had a squeegee, your dad had a checkbook.

STU: And by the way, the trumped up trickle-down thing was interesting because that's not even the correct liberal argument as to what caused the financial crisis. Like, we're supposed to believe that a cut from 39.6 percent to 35 percent for the upper echelon of taxpayers was the thing that caused the financial housing crisis. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

GLENN: So Hillary Clinton goes full-fledged socialist on one of the most incredible things I've ever seen. And that is, you know what -- you know what the problem is, it's a new day. It's a new day, and we have some new ideas that we're going to implement.

For instance, we think companies should share the wealth. Should share the profits. That's the most important thing. In my first ten minutes because the first ten minutes of any debate is the most important thing. So what do I have on my list? I'm going to force companies to share the wealth.

Wow, don't know where we find that one in the Constitution, but don't worry, we have the constitutional expert running to the aid of the Constitution to make sure that that's not the solution. The solution is keeping these companies here. And I will make them stay here. And I will make them do these things. And I will make them stay here.

Okay. So I could go on and on in this kind of mode because that's what it was. I love the people who were saying, "Oh, it was so clear last night." To whom? To whom? To whom was it so clear?

I'll tell you who it was clear to: Donald Trump -- whoever did this. And I got to believe this is Roger Ailes. Because this is the most brilliant thing I've ever heard. Did you hear who he blamed everything on last night? Hillary Clinton said, I'm going to be here, and you're going to blame everything on me by the end of the night.

But who did he actually blame everything on? Everything? Everything?

He didn't blame it on the Democrats. He didn't even mention the Republicans. He is a totally new animal. He blamed it on the politicians.

PAT: Politicians. Every time, politicians.

GLENN: The independents. The millennials and any independent -- anybody who doesn't have a team -- and I got news for you, guys, everyone who is playing teams, you think you're going to save the country, but you are playing the short game. The long game is to think 2020, 2024, 2028. Is there a country left, you will say? No, probably not. But the reason why there will not be a country left is because we have cannibalized each other. And we have ripped each other apart because nobody is looking at the long-term game.

And that is: What's worth saving?

Donald Trump is going to look like a genius on a couple of things. These quotes -- if she wins, the quotes that he gave last night on a couple of things are going to absolutely come to pass. And they're going to come to pass if he becomes president too. But he will forget it, and his solutions will only make it worse, as will hers.

He said, "We're in a bubble. We're in a bubble, and it's going to pop. And it's going to be the worst disaster ever." Yeah, he's absolutely right. Absolutely right.

But here's what happened: Because he -- because he targeted politicians, he wasn't doing the same old, same old.

While he was -- while he was -- I can't even say proposing ideas because I didn't hear any real ideas proposed last night.

I barely heard them from her. But I didn't hear any new ideas proposed. I heard the same thing: We're going to force these companies to stay. We're going to force China to pay their fair share. Hey, who doesn't love Russia?

I mean, I didn't hear any solutions. Even when he got specific and asked for specifics -- how do you repatriot $5 trillion? Now, listen to the logic. We have to have tariffs. Smoot-Hawley, that's what's caused the Great Depression. We have to have tariffs and taxes, and we have to repatriot $5 trillion in cash. Why?

Because his logic was that money is going to come back, flooding into the system, and it's going to circulate in the economy, and people are going to start spending that money.

What that will mean is if you put $5 trillion of US currency back into the system overnight and it actually does circulate in the economy, you will have hyperinflation -- you will have a crash and hyperinflation.

So neither of them -- neither of them -- at least he was recognizing the problems. But if I was watching this as a millennial, he said enough to me -- you know what, I agree with her. I agree with universal health care. I agree with taking the guns. Forget the Constitution. Taking the guns -- if you're on a No Fly List, you shouldn't have a gun. And I agree with you on that. I agree with you on some of the --

PAT: He agreed with her on that.

GLENN: Yeah, the child welfare. The child home day care stuff. I agree with you on all of that. There's lots of things we agree on.

So if I'm hearing that, I'm hearing, he's not for the two-party system.

Now, I don't know if he appealed to the millennials, but he absolutely pealed to me if I worked for Carrier and my job was at stake and all I want is an end to this two-party nonsense and an end to all of the stuff I've seen and heard under George Bush and Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. I want an end.

I think he won last night. And I think he won actually -- because it's a new world, I think he won in a big way.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton shakes hands with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as Moderator Lester Holt looks on during the Presidential Debate at Hofstra University on September 26, 2016 in Hempstead, New York. The first of four debates for the 2016 Election, three Presidential and one Vice Presidential, is moderated by NBC's Lester Holt. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Media cover-up: Why Clinton deported six times more than Trump

Genaro Molina / Contributor | Getty Images

MSNBC and CNN want you to think the president is a new Hitler launching another Holocaust. But the actual deportation numbers are nowhere near what they claim.

Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta, compared Trump’s immigration policies to Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. He claimed that Hitler didn’t bother with German law — he just hauled people off to death camps in Poland and Hungary. Apparently, that’s what Trump is doing now by deporting MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.

Symone Sanders took it a step further. The MSNBC host suggested that deporting gang-affiliated noncitizens is simply the first step toward deporting black Americans. I’ll wait while you try to do that math.

The debate is about control — weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent.

Media mouthpieces like Sanders and Matthews are just the latest examples of the left’s Pavlovian tribalism when it comes to Trump and immigration. Just say the word “Trump,” and people froth at the mouth before they even hear the sentence. While the media cries “Hitler,” the numbers say otherwise. And numbers don’t lie — the narrative does.

Numbers don’t lie

The real “deporter in chief” isn’t Trump. It was President Bill Clinton, who sent back 12.3 million people during his presidency — 11.4 million returns and nearly 900,000 formal removals. President George W. Bush, likewise, presided over 10.3 million deportations — 8.3 million returns and two million removals. Even President Barack Obama, the progressive darling, oversaw 5.5 million deportations, including more than three million formal removals.

So how does Donald Trump stack up? Between 2017 and 2021, Trump deported somewhere between 1.5 million and two million people — dramatically fewer than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. In his current term so far, Trump has deported between 100,000 and 138,000 people. Yes, that’s assertive for a first term — but it's still fewer than Biden was deporting toward the end of his presidency.

The numbers simply don’t support the hysteria.

Who's the “dictator” here? Trump is deporting fewer people, with more legal oversight, and still being compared to history’s most reviled tyrant. Apparently, sending MS-13 gang members — violent criminals — back to their country of origin is now equivalent to genocide.

It’s not about immigration

This debate stopped being about immigration a long time ago. It’s now about control — about weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent. It’s about turning Donald Trump into the villain of every story, facts be damned.

If the numbers mattered, we’d be having a very different national conversation. We’d be asking why Bill Clinton deported six times as many people as Trump and never got labeled a fascist. We’d be questioning why Barack Obama’s record-setting removals didn’t spark cries of ethnic cleansing. And we’d be wondering why Trump, whose enforcement was relatively modest by comparison, triggered lawsuits, media hysteria, and endless Nazi analogies.

But facts don’t drive this narrative. The villain does. And in this script, Trump plays the villain — even when he does far less than the so-called heroes who came before him.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Can Trump stop the blackouts that threaten America's future?

Allan Tannenbaum / Contributor | Getty Images

If America wants to remain a global leader in the coming decades, we need more energy fast.

It's no secret that Glenn is an advocate for the safe and ethical use of AI, not because he wants it, but because he knows it’s coming whether we like it or not. Our only option is to shape AI on our terms, not those of our adversaries. America has to win the AI Race if we want to maintain our stability and security, and to do that, we need more energy.

AI demands dozens—if not hundreds—of new server farms, each requiring vast amounts of electricity. The problem is, America lacks the power plants to generate the required electricity, nor do we have a power grid capable of handling the added load. We must overcome these hurdles quickly to outpace China and other foreign competitors.

Outdated Power Grid

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Our power grid is ancient, slowly buckling under the stress of our modern machines. AAI’s energy demands could collapse it without a major upgrade. The last significant overhaul occurred under FDR nearly a century ago, when he connected rural America to electricity. Since then, we’ve patched the system piecemeal, but it’s still the same grid from the 1930s. Over 70 percent of the powerlines are 30 years old or older, and circuit breakers and other vital components are in similar condition. Most people wouldn't trust a dishwasher that was 30 years old, and yet much of our grid relies on technology from the era of VHS tapes.

Upgrading the grid would prevent cascading failures, rolling blackouts, and even EMP attacks. It would also enable new AI server farms while ensuring reliable power for all.

A Need for Energy

JONATHAN NACKSTRAND / Stringer | Getty Images

Earlier this month, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt appeared before Congress as part of an AI panel and claimed that by 2030, the U.S. will need to add 96 gigawatts to our national power production to meet AI-driven demand. While some experts question this figure, the message is clear: We must rapidly expand power production. But where will this energy come from?

As much as eco nuts would love to power the world with sunshine and rainbows, we need a much more reliable and significantly more efficient power source if we want to meet our electricity goals. Nuclear power—efficient, powerful, and clean—is the answer. It’s time to shed outdated fears of atomic energy and embrace the superior electricity source. Building and maintaining new nuclear plants, along with upgraded infrastructure, would create thousands of high-paying American jobs. Nuclear energy will fuel AI, boost the economy, and modernize America’s decaying infrastructure.

A Bold Step into the Future

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

This is President Trump’s chance to leave a historic mark on America, restoring our role as global leaders and innovators. Just as FDR’s power grid and plants made America the dominant force of the 20th century, Trump could upgrade our infrastructure to secure dominance in the 21st century. Visionary leadership must cut red tape and spark excitement in the industry. This is how Trump can make America great again.

POLL: Did astronomers discover PROOF of alien life?

Print Collector / Contributor | Getty Images

Are we alone in the universe?

It's no secret that Glenn keeps one eye on the cosmos, searching for any signs of ET. Late last week, a team of astronomers at the University of Cambridge made an exciting discovery that could change how we view the universe. The astronomers were monitoring a distant planet, K2-18b, when the James Webb Space Telescope detected dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, two atmospheric gases believed only to be generated by living organisms. The planet, which is just over two and a half times larger than Earth, orbits within the "habitable zone" of its star, meaning the presence of liquid water on its surface is possible, further supporting the possibility that life exists on this distant world.

Unfortunately, humans won't be able to visit K2-18b to see for ourselves anytime soon, as the planet is about 124 light-years from Earth. This means that even if we had rockets that could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 124 years to reach the potentially verdant planet. Even if humans made the long trek to K2-18b, they would be faced with an even more intense challenge upon arrival: Gravity. Assuming K2-18b has a similar density to Earth, its increased size would also mean it would have increased gravity, two and a half times as much gravity, to be exact. This would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for humans to live or explore the surface without serious technological support. But who knows, give Elon Musk and SpaceX a few years, and we might be ready to seek out new life (and maybe even new civilizations).

But Glenn wants to know what you think. Could K2-18b harbor life on its distant surface? Could alien astronomers be peering back at us from across the cosmos? Would you be willing to boldly go where no man has gone before? Let us know in the poll below:

Could there be life on K2-18b?

Could there be an alien civilization thriving on K2-18b?

Will humans develop the technology to one day explore distant worlds?

Would you sign up for a trip to an alien world?

Is K2-18b just another cold rock in space?

Big Pharma’s role in rising neurological disorders: Will RFK Jr. uncover the truth?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Our children are sick, and Big Pharma claims to be the cure, but is RFK Jr. closer to proving they are the disease?

For years, neurological disorders in our children have been on the rise. One in nine children in the U.S. has been diagnosed with ADHD, and between 2016 and 2022, more than one million kids were told they suffer from the disorder. Similarly, autism diagnoses have increased by 175 percent over the past decade. RFK Jr. pledged to investigate the rising rates of neurological disorders as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and this week, he announced a major initiative.

Earlier this week, RFK Jr. announced that the HHS has embarked on a massive testing and research effort to uncover the root causes of autism and the sharp spike in recent diagnoses. The HHS Secretary vowed that the results will be available by September of this year, leaving many skeptical about the study's rigor. Conversely, some speculate that the HHS may have unpublished studies revealing critical insights into these disorders, just waiting to see the light of day.

Glenn brought up a recent article by the Daily Wire referencing a New York Times piece in which experts questioned the legitimacy of ADHD diagnoses. Glenn agreed and suggested that people are just wired differently; they learn, work, and study differently, and the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all school system simply fails to accommodate everyone.

New York Times' ADHD Admission

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, the New York Times published an article that made a shocking admission: there are no concrete biological markers for ADHD. The clinical definition of ADHD is no longer supported by the evidence, and there are no physical, genetic, or chemical identifiers for the disorder, nor is there any real way to test for it. The paper also admitted that people diagnosed with ADHD would suddenly find that they no longer had any symptoms after a change of environment, profession, or field of study. This suggests that "ADHD" might simply be a matter of interests and skills, not a chronic brain sickness.

The most horrifying implication of this admission is that millions of people, including children, have been prescribed heavy mind-altering drugs for years for a disorder that lacks real evidence of its very existence. These drugs are serious business and include products such as Adderall, Ritalin, and Desoxyn. All of these drugs are considered "Schedule II," which is a drug classification that puts them on the same level as cocaine, PCP, and fentanyl. Notably, Desoxyn is chemically identical to methamphetamine, differing only in its production in regulated laboratories rather than illegal settings.

Worse yet, studies show that these medications, like Desoxyn, often provide no long-term benefits. Testing demonstrated that in the short term, there were some positive effects, but after 36 months, there was no discernible difference in symptoms between people who were medicated and those who were not. For decades, we have been giving our children hardcore drugs with no evidence of them working or even that the disorder exists.

RFK Jr's Autism Study

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

Autism rates are on the rise, and RFK Jr. is going to get to the bottom of it. In the year 2000, approximately one in 150 children was diagnosed with autism, but only 20 years later, the rate had increased to one in 36. While some claim that this is simply due to more accurate testing, RFK Jr. doesn't buy it and is determined to discover what is the underlying cause. He is an outspoken critic of vaccines, asserting that the true scope of their side effects has been buried by greed and corruption to sell more vaccines.

RFK Jr. doesn't plan on stopping at vaccines. Similar to ADHD, RFK Jr. suspects other environmental factors could increase of autism or exacerbate symptoms. Factors like diet, water quality, air pollution, and parenting approaches are all under investigation. It's time to bring clarity to the neurological disorders that plague our nation, cut through the corruption, and reveal the healing truth.

Neurological Intervention

WIN MCNAMEE / Contributor | Getty Images

Big Pharma has been all too happy to sit back and watch as the rate of neurological disorders climbs, adding to the ever-growing list of permanent patients who are led to believe that their only choice is to shell out endless money for treatments, prescriptions, and doctor visits. Rather than encouraging lifestyle changes to improve our well-being, they push ongoing medication and costly treatments.

All RFK Jr. is doing is asking questions, and yet the backlash from the "experts" is so immense that one can't help but wonder what they could be hiding. Both Glenn and RFK Jr. have their suspicions of Big Pharma, and the upcoming HHS study might be one of the most important steps to making America healthy again.

Glenn's Show Prep