The Real Question for Trump Supporters Should Be 'Does it Matter?'

January 12, 2016

Editor

History repeats itself and unless we learn from it, we're going to make the exact same mistakes. Glenn asked on radio Tuesday what would happen if we could go back in time to 2008. Is there something more we could have done to reach Obama supporters and make a difference?

Think back to the Lewinsky scandal when Clinton supporters vehemently denied the scandalous accusations. "Doesn't matter," they would say---until it became evident he was guilty of sexual indiscretions. Then, they changed their tune.

Could we have tried harder to help Obama supporters understand why his history with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers mattered? Should we do more now to help Trump supporters look at their candidate's stance on issues and ask, "Does it matter?"

That's a question that does matter.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: If we had to do it all over again, is there a way that we could have reached the Obama supporter and actually made -- had them look at things and say, "Okay. No wait a minute. Hang on just a second. You're right. Jeremiah Wright. Boy, that is disturbing." Is there a way that we could -- is there something we could have done that would have opened people's minds intellectually?

STU: I think what you're looking for here, if I'm understanding, is, is there that magical phrase? Is there that magical approach? Is there some tone change or something like that --

GLENN: Yes. Is there anything that we did that we now know -- because history repeats itself. So the next time you come across an Obama supporter, but it's a new Obama, how do you approach them? And we don't repeat the same exact mistakes.

Do you remember, Pat -- and this didn't work -- but remember during the Lewinksy thing, we said, "The question should have been at the very beginning, yes, okay -- because what happened was, he didn't do it. Yes, he did. No, he didn't. Yes, he did. No, he didn't. Yes, he did. He did it. Doesn't matter. He did it. Doesn't matter. He did it. Doesn't matter.

Wait a minute. What? You've been arguing with me for six months that he didn't do it. And you were calling me every name under the sun because he didn't do it. You should have said, even if he did, it didn't matter. You knew it mattered at the time. But six months went by, and so it just inoculated it to the point to where everybody was talking about it didn't really matter then.

So I said, "Next time somebody is, for instance, oh, I don't know taking top secret emails and using them on their own server, instead of saying, yes, she did. No, she didn't. Yes, she did. No, she didn't. Does it matter that she did?" But nobody will ever go on record with it. So there's no way to win. But that's the lesson I learned. Does it matter if Benghazi did happen that way? And it wasn't about the film and she lied, does it matter? To me, yes, it does. I have found to those, they will argue and argue and argue. And in the end, it doesn't matter anyway. So is there any thing we can to do change it? How do we argue a different way?

STU: And that's a great point. Because I think if you get people to answer those questions, what you get the answer to that is no. It doesn't matter to them. Because essentially they're on a team.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: It's impossible to take --

GLENN: Take the offensive team.

STU: I can't argue to a Cowboys fan that they should no longer be a Cowboys fan. There's no logical argument that could ever overwhelm the idea that they like the Cowboys. Eagles is an even better example. I'm a huge Eagles fan. And despite the fact that they've won exactly zero Super Bowls --

GLENN: You're never coming off the Eagles.

STU: Right. I honestly don't care what you say. Their entire stadium is built with giant windmills at the top so they can focus on green energy. You hear me about global warming. I'm not a guy who likes those policies. But you'll never change my mind. That I'm an Eagles fan. So the answer that I believe to your question, essentially, is --

GLENN: Hopeless.

STU: There is not a phrase or approach that will --

GLENN: No, this is happy. This is good.

STU: No, this is really positive. But the answer is that people no longer make these decisions when it comes to elections based on the things we're talking about. Because I honestly believe with this audience and I think a lot of the people in this audience are on this side. But for the people that are holdouts in the Trump campaign. I honestly believed that if you could expose what this man said and believed, they would react to it. The reasoning is, they reacted to it with people like Mitt Romney, whose record is considerably more conservative than Donald Trump.

GLENN: Yes. Mitt Romney is more conservative --

STU: And I don't think he's a conservative guy at all.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

STU: But he's way more conservative than Donald Trump. And when you go through the record, the same things that you look at and you say, okay. Well, Mitt Romney is a problem. I mean, we had 100,000 calls in the last campaign. Mitt Romney is a problem because he flip-flopped on these issues. I don't trust him on this.

Donald Trump is way, way worse. He's changing his mind week to week on major issues, and it just doesn't matter to that slice of the electorate. Like, if Donald Trump came out and said last week he donated to Barack Obama, would that matter? No.

PAT: I don't think it would. I don't think it would.

STU: It would not party. Once you're on that team, you're on that team. So I don't know how you can possibly change that. They're going to be fans of the squad they love. And that's the thing, period.

PAT: And here's the thing, if Ted Cruz started talking about income inequality today and the fact that women make less than men in the workforce and started using the false statistics that Democrats do, we'd jump off that bandwagon.

GLENN: I'd be off that team today. I'd be off that team.

PAT: We'd be off that bandwagon.

JEFFY: But Ted Cruz is trying that. Right? He's changed that up. Instead of preaching to Stu about how bad the Eagles are, you would just eventually tell them how good another team is and hope that he comes on board with that team and leaves the Eagles on his own. And that's Ted Cruz's plan, right? So instead of being negative --

GLENN: So maybe that's where we went wrong. Instead of saying -- and this is really kind of your first answer, Stu. Have a better candidate.

PAT: Have a better alternative.

GLENN: When I asked you, what did we wrong in 2008? Have a better candidate.

Well, okay. We can't control that. But --

STU: We can.

GLENN: Okay. Here's the thing. Yes, we can. But here's the thing. I spent my last eight years and you've spent your last eight years if you've listened to me and you understand what I'm saying, you've spent your last eight years and maybe, quite honestly, your last 15 years trying to be consistent in your life. Trying to say, "Okay. What does the world really mean? What is really happening to our country? What is happening overseas?" You don't accept things like, "Oh, well, this has nothing to do with Islam." You know it does, and you know that is inconsistent with reality.

So those little inconsistencies with reality bother you. So over the last eight years, especially, you have said, "Okay. What was one of the problems with George?" One of the problems with George Bush was, he got into office, and the Republicans did exactly what they said they weren't going to do. They spent as much money -- well, not as much money as this guy -- but they spent as much money as the last guy. They did the same policies. They had the same things. They were spying on us. They did all the things we said no to.

And so we realized when we got into 2008, one of the things that we have to be, to be able to have any credibility and to be able to win long-term is to be consistent, is to actually stand for something. And so we've spent the last eight years trying to stand for something. Trying to stand up and say, "No, no. I don't care if I win or lose. I wanted to mean something. I want -- I want my word to mean something. I want to be able to stand and sleep at night and say I wasn't part of the problem. I want to be able to go in 2020 and be able to argue, no, my president, what I said and what my candidate said he would do, he did. He didn't get into office and just do exactly the same damn thing that Barack Obama was doing.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

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