The 'big winner' for Glenn in Thursday's debate

August 07, 2015

WRITER

With Glenn off radio for a month, last night's debate was a great way for him to see some of the GOP candidates in action. Let's face it, Glenn has made it very clear that certain candidates (*cough* Ted Cruz *cough*) are strong front runners. That's why Glenn's revelation of who he thought won the debate was so surprising.

Before Thursday's debate, Glenn considered Senator Marco Rubio kind of a "question mark" as a candidate.

"You're not really sure who he is. You haven't seen a lot of him," Glenn said on radio Friday.

Glenn went on to declare Rubio not only the winner of the debate, but also someone he might consider supporting.

"I think he really truly believes things. Because of what he said last night and what he said on CNN this morning," Glenn said, referencing Rubio's interview with Chris Cuomo talking about his stance on abortion.

Watch the video or read the full transcript of the segment below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors.

GLENN: I said earlier that the big -- the big winner from last night, I thought, because he was so likable and he was so strong on things, that he went up in my head on placement. I didn't change who -- I'm for Ted Cruz.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But I'm looking -- okay, if Ted Cruz doesn't get the nod, who can get it. All right. Number two for me is Rand Paul. Now, Marco Rubio was one of those guys who I was like, okay, if Ted doesn't get it. Who else is there?

GLENN: Marco Rubio moved up a lot last night for me. One of the things he said -- and I think Stu is right on this. Stu said earlier today, I think he's not a guy who is playing politics. I think he really truly believes things. Because of what he said last night and what he said on CNN this morning.

This is not going to be popular in the popular -- in the general election. And it's really kind of -- I don't know if it's that popular with all of the Republicans as well.

PAT: He's not worried about that though.

GLENN: I know that.

PAT: Like you were just saying, this is his position. He's proud of his position. He's not ashamed of it in any way. And he defends it really well.

GLENN: Here he is this morning on CNN with Chris Cuomo talking about his stance on abortion.

MARCO: Science has decided when it's human life.

CHRIS: Science has not decided it's at conception.

MARCO: Let me correct you. Science has -- absolutely it has. Science has concluded absolutely it has. What else can it be? It cannot turn into an animal. It can't turn into a donkey. The only thing that can become is a human being.

(cross-talk)

CHRIS: Look, of course, I understand the logic, but it's a little too simple.

MARCO: It's a human life. It cannot be anything else.

CHRIS: Senator, I understand that. But that's oversimplifying it a little bit.

(cross-talk)

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. He's exactly right.

PAT: Oh, he's crushing Cuomo here.

GLENN: There's nothing else it can be. So when does life begin? When does it become a human? It is at the moment of conception. Because there's nothing else -- it won't grow into a shoe. It won't grow into a tumor. It's a child, period.

CHRIS: -- this is a presented argument of science. In having a DNA map, so does a plant. It's about when it becomes a human being. I'm not saying what I think in answer to that question. That's not my position. But don't you think if you want to be a leader of the future, that's a question that deserves an answer that is definitive beyond your faith. When does life begin? None of you are calling for any type of panel for conception.

MARCO: At conception. At conception.

CHRIS: That's your faith. That's your faith. That's not science.

MARCO: No, it isn't.

CHRIS: It is not definitive science.

MARCO: It absolutely is.

CHRIS: I'll have scientists all morning from all walks of life who will say, we cannot say it is definitely human life at conception.

PAT: What?

GLENN: Stop. Stop.

PAT: What else could it be? I want one scientist who will tell you it's not human life. One -- I want one. Because I would love to have the argument with that scientist.

GLENN: What else could it be?

PAT: What could it be? What could it be?

STU: Never anything else.

GLENN: He says, well, it has a DNA map. So does a plant. Yes, of a plant.

If I took the DNA from a tree and I said is that a tree? You would look at the DNA coding and you would go, that's a tree.

STU: Right. Yeah, it's plant life. And this is human life.

GLENN: Right. When there's --

PAT: If you take a seed and plant it, like you take a seed of a tree and you plant it, well, I don't know that that's a tree. Prove that's a tree.

GLENN: Give me some time. It will sprout very soon. And if you want to look at it scientifically, you could take the DNA and say, yes, that is an oak tree.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: It's just a very young oak tree. It is the seed of an oak tree. But it is the oak tree. It won't grow into anything else.

STU: This starts after about three minutes of this, by the way. It goes on and on and on.

GLENN: By the way, Chris Cuomo, what are they looking for in space? What are they looking for in space? Life.

STU: The signs of it.

GLENN: The conditions that could create life. If we find bacteria on Mars, they will declare it life.

STU: They sure will. They sure will.

GLENN: So how do you say that bacteria on Mars is life, but the baby inside is not?

STU: Is not. Yeah. That's incomprehensible.

PAT: That's a good argument.

STU: And Rubio in a tough position. In a very hostile interview, sits there and defends this over and over again.

PAT: He's fine with it.

STU: He's fine with it. He believes it. He's confident. I got the sense listening to this interview and kind of what happened in the debate last night, that if he winds up losing because of this, he's totally fine with it. Fine.

GLENN: He is. I met with him on vacation, and we have to have him on the show and spend some time with him. I met with him on vacation. He is that guy.

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: He just believes what he believes, and he's willing to say what he believes. And if he loses, that's fine. I got that feeling from him.

JEFFY: That's what got him in office in Florida as a senator. And before that. But as a senator for sure.

GLENN: Yeah.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep