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)

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