Ben Shapiro’s Wild CNN Appearance Exposes the Psychosis of the Left – RedState
Scott Jennings had a backup on Tuesday, Ben Shapiro presenting himself unexpectedly on CNN. The two teamed up to carefully dismantle the left panel of Abby Phillip, which included Ana Kasparian perpetually over-stimulated.
What happened during the time is a case study in the psychosis of the Democratic Party. Shapiro has repeatedly faced with absurd affirmations and emotional diatribes, both of which constitute the heart of left ideology.
See also: the real reason why the conservatives look at CNN
.@Anakasparian suggests that military expenditure stimulates debt more than social security:@benshapiro: It is not even a percentage remotely of what we spend for Social Security.@Scottjenningsky: You think that Israel is a larger part of our budget than Social Security? pic.twitter.com/fbd18tngnp
– Wire Daily (@realdailywire) September 3, 2025
Kasparian: By the way, I completely reject what you have just said about how we go bankrupt because of Social Security. Really, you don’t think, like the billions of dollars we spent on wars in the Middle East have something to do with that?
Shapiro: It is not even a percentage from a distance from …
Kasparian: No, no, no, our national debt increased considerably after September 11, after starting the invading countries in the Middle East. Now we are at 30, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Israel, Ukraine. Honestly, these foreign conflicts have much more to do with our national debt rather than to use the payment of social security.
Shapiro: The hell they make.
Jennings: You think that Israel is a larger part of our budget than social security, health insurance and Medicaid.
Kasparian: I think we spend too much money for military aid for foreign countries.
Jennings: I just ask you as a mathematical question, do you think that Israel is more than Social Security?
Kasparian: Do you think social security is a problem with the amount of money we are leading to conflicts abroad?
Jennings: In mathematics, yes.
Kasparian starting her comment with “I completely reject”, only to her completely reject realityThis is what you expect. I understand that she hates Israel and likes terrorists of the Middle East, and does not make fun of you, that underlies everything she says there, but that does not mean that she is entitled to her own statistical facts. Whatever thinks of the different wars in question, some of which also oppose me, the expenses for them have been overshadowed by the ongoing expenses of domestic rights. As Shapiro notes, it was actually after 2008 that the national debt began to skyrocket. Expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to this, but they were not the driver of the latter.
Again, I don’t want to seem that I defend George W. Bush’s spending habits because they have established a bad precedent, but when you talk about national debt in 2025, blame “wars in the Middle East” is like putting $ 10,000 on your credit card and then saying that you would have been well if you would not have been to Wendy at that time. We have to face the real facts and figures that exist today, and we could literally cut our entire Defense budget and always in debt due to rights. Regardless of the economic costs we would pay if Russia and China could dominate the world sphere.
Of course, Kasparian was hardly alone in his idiocy. Phillip, which is supposed to be the impartial moderator, also sounded to show that it has no idea of the functioning of Social Security.
Related: Abby Phillip and Ana Navarro combine to defend racism
.@benshapiro education @Cnn Panelists how social security works is the video you didn’t know you needace pic.twitter.com/w54bsypykp
– Wire Daily (@realdailywire) September 3, 2025
Phillip: When you speak, hold, when you talk about the government’s payment, you talk about social security, which is people’s money.
Shapiro: Well, it’s not the money you paid …
Phillip: this is the system they pay (diaphony)
Shapiro: Well, no …
Kasparian: you see it on each pay check heel
Shapiro: Okay, yes, believe me, I pay a lot of social security …
Phillip: I pay social security. I don’t know about you.
Shapiro: I promise you, the amount that people withdraw is not the amount that goes, that’s why we go bankrupt.
Phillip: Okay, but it is not the government that just gives a white check …
Shapiro: No, it’s the government to borrow money to pay. You pay in x dollars, then you get X dollars several times when you retire. This is how the system works. This is not a locking box. This is what Al Gore discussed in 2000.
This is the kind of thing that makes you want to beat your head against the wall, and be fair, to talk to someone like Abby Phillip does that. These people have no intellectual capacity to understand how social security works, or they are so deeply dishonest that they are ready to lie to a national audience on this subject.
It is ridiculous that Shapiro even has to explain this to supposed intellectuals, but no, social security is not “their money”, referring to those who pay there. I pay social security. Can I make a withdrawal tomorrow? Can I take everything I paid for and move it to my very successful retirement accounts? Is this transmitted to my children if I die? The answer to all these questions is no, which means that it is not “my money”. This is a government tax used to underestimate a collapse law system, which requires hundreds of billions of dollars per year to be borrowed per year to stay solvent. This is the biggest Ponzi program in history. There is no “locking box”. The government is not just your money for you.
By going beyond the social security argument, the question of crime also appeared.
.@benshapiro Good the position of the eyebrows of Democrats on the repression of Trump’s crime on @Cnn::
“If the position you end up taking is that there is no serious emergency in Chicago … or that the crime is not so important … Trump will win this battle all day.” pic.twitter.com/4yjapivjy
– Wire Daily (@realdailywire) September 3, 2025
Shapiro: One of the other things here, however, is, I think, what Van was referring here, namely that President Trump is used to hurting his political opponents in a unique way on this kind of thing. Last year, 574 murders had 574 murders, and you can make the argument, I think that a plausible argument, according to which the national guard troops should not be on the ground by applying the crime, both legally and just like a general position.
But if the position you end up taking is that there is no emergency of serious crime in Chicago at a rhetorical level, not at the legal level, at the rehearsal level, or if you make the case that the crime in Chicago is simply not so serious, which seems to be the error that many democratic politicians are doing right now, Trump will win this battle all day.
Phillip continues to trip over his words, trying to counter, suggesting that crime is a problem, but that voters do not approve of how Trump manages it (this is false, because the polls have shown it several times above the water on the issue). Anyway, what Shapiro talks about is those who failed the mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson (D) and the Governor of Buffet, Governor JB Pritzker (’), who said on several occasions that Trump had manufactured all of this. It is not a winning message because it is such an obvious lie.
I will end with this comic exchange, in which one of the democratic panelists congratulated FDR, only to slam Trump on his pricing policy.
Foroohar: It was patriotism, it was a question of trying to make people enthusiastic about what could happen in this country. This president tries to collect funds by putting prices on our allies and adversaries who have no sense. There is nothing … The two administrations have nothing in common.
Shapiro: FDR has supervised some of the biggest prices in American history, and the FDR has spent most of its administration to tear what it called criminals of great wealth. So trying to …
Foroohar: You know, we will always live many public works in this administration. I want us to build highways.
Shapiro: Why are you against what Trump does because he makes a much lower version of what FDR has done?
Foroohar: No, Trump had, Trump has, once again, his left hand does not know what the right hand does. Let me give you an example.
Rana Foroohar then proceeds to speak of the construction of ships, as if the current administration of Trump, which existed every eight months, was responsible for this. The point is not so granular, however. Curiously, while some Republicans are skeptical about Trump’s pricing policies and what they produce and produce, Democrats have historically have adored Prices, in particular the exaggerated harmful regime set up by former president Franklin D. Roosevelt who extended the great depression. This makes their sudden opposition to much milder and transparent milder prices.
Which brings me back to leftist psychosis. They are not in disagreement with half what Trump does. In some cases, he actually does what they have supported in the past. They just can’t exceed their hatred for the guy. Everything else is secondary, including verifiable facts.
Publisher’s note: Every day, here in Redstate, we will get up and fight against the radical left and deliver the conservative relationships that our readers deserve.
Help us continue to tell the truth. Join Redstate VIP and use the promotional code STRUGGLE To obtain 60% reduction on your subscription.
