Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy is an American entrepreneur and presidential candidate. He founded Roivant Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, in 2014. In February 2023, Ramaswamy declared his candidacy for the Republican Party nomination in the 2024 United States presidential election and has arguably had the strongest performance in the 2023 GOP Presidential primaries.
To donate, volunteer and learn more about Vivek’s presidential campaign: https://bit.ly/3StWcJk
Protect yourself against Central Bank control with - American Hartford Gold
https://bit.ly/3QzMjHd
Win a signed copy of Vivek's book "Nation of Victims" by answering this question: https://bit.ly/3Qqa5W4
Text PBD to 65532 or call 866-939-6984
Purchase tickets to the PBD Town Hall: Live Meet the Candidate Event with Robert F. Kennedy Jr on December 6th: https://bit.ly/3QRXgoX
Connect one-on-one with the right expert to get the answers you need with Minnect!
https://bit.ly/468i2VJ
Get best-in-class business advice with Bet-David Consulting:
https://bit.ly/40oUafz
Visit VT.com for the latest news and insights from the world of politics, business and entertainment: https://bit.ly/46a8TMC
Visit Valuetainment University for the best courses online for entrepreneurs:
https://bit.ly/47gKVA0
Text PBD to 65532 or call 866-939-6984
Subscribe to:
@VALUETAINMENT
@vtsoscast
@ValuetainmentComedy
@bizdocpodcast
Want to get clear on your next 5 business moves? https://valuetainment.com/academy/
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get the latest updates in real-time!
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Why would you bet on Goliath when we got pet taved?
Value payment, giving values contagious.
This world of entrepreneurs, we get no value to hate it.
Ideally running, homie, look what I become.
I'm the one.
So podcast episode 326, we have the man who uses TikTok and pisses other people.
He's not afraid of calling people out.
He apparently calls someone a what, a Dick Cheney and three inch heels, right?
And she corrected him and said it's five inch heels.
And I still don't know what the tweet's all about.
We're going to talk about that.
I mean, I have no idea what that is.
Yeah, I had no idea what she was talking about.
I called out two people in heels for the next time.
Yes, that's right.
It was accurate.
Yes, but it was Constant calling out.
It's great to have you back, man.
Good to be on, brother.
Yes.
How you doing?
You're fine here.
I'm feeling good.
I'm feeling pretty unconstrained.
How was dinner with your family and Ronna McNadnell last night?
You know, it was.
Well, she said she refused to pay the bill because she's not, I'm not going to get another cent from the RNC.
Yeah, I saw that.
Can you believe that?
Can you say that?
Can she say that?
I mean, not legally.
I mean, if you think about your duty is not your money.
Yeah.
It's not your money, right?
And so I don't know if people, you think people know what we're talking about.
Just to story your time right here.
Yeah, people already know what we're talking about.
So just for people, if they didn't watch the debate the other night or whatever, I am a believer in accountability.
Okay, so this woman is appointed chair of the RNC, Republican National Committee, in 2017.
Let's just do the math.
It's not that complicated.
2018, loss.
2020, loss.
2022, no red wave.
2023, bad trown singing.
So insanity is expecting a different conclusion unless you're going to make a change.
This is the person who's running the Republican National Committee.
So that had happened the night before the debate, the 2023 trown singing.
So I went on stage.
It's like nobody else, every other candidate's supposed to delicately tiptoe around the genteel norms of the RNC.
And it's not like I surprised her with this, okay?
We actually, oh, I didn't, I haven't talked to her this before.
So we went, we had it, we had a debate walkthrough.
You kind of go through in the morning of, I'm not making this up.
It's like, I wish there was no cameras allowed in there.
We can catch this.
She comes in.
She's just like trying to give me a hug.
I'm like, I'll give you a handshake.
And I was just like, how are you doing?
And she's like, she's like, how are you doing?
I was like, not great.
I mean, the election didn't go very well last night.
She's not great given last night.
And I'm not even kidding you.
Here's what she says.
What happened last night?
Oh, my God.
No, no, no, I'm not kidding.
So I thought she was joking.
So I'm just like, yeah.
She's like, no, but seriously, what happened last night?
And then she got kind of combative about it.
Who's around when this has happened?
Oh, like people from NBC, other like staffers from the Republican party.
I just don't want to give you a hug.
You said, I'll give you a handshake.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'll say, I'll give you a handshake.
Have you guys had any feud prior to this?
No, no, no, but I'm just, I'm just, I believe in, well, we have, not multiple, actually.
Because it's not personal.
It's the failure of how she leads this party.
I mean, number one, at the start of this race, I said, release the debate stage criteria so you don't play games later.
I believe that played a role.
And she was just like, no, but they actually released it earlier than they did last time around because I believe I called on them to.
So they released it at least earlier.
So I gave credit where credit was due when they at least responded.
First, she was like, no, we're not going to do it.
We're staying radio silent.
But I believe it had an impact on that.
And I gave credit where credit was due.
So that was, that loop was closed.
Then Fox calls me after the second debate and Chris Christie and say, hey, do you want to, would you spar with Chris Christie or have a dialogue, open dialogue?
Since the second debate, I mean, the unspoken reality is that was useless.
So I said I would do it.
The night before, Ronna McDaniel calls me on my cell phone and says, you will be disqualified from the next debate if you participate in this discussion with Chris Christie.
I said, Ronna, how does this advance the interests of the GOP?
Like the GOP voter base.
How is the GOP voter base better off if we hear less debate between the candidates?
Explain that to me.
She has no good explanation, but regardless, that raised some of my recent sparring with her in public.
But this has nothing to do with me and her.
What happened on the night before the debate was the Republican Party nationally got trounced and everybody-Kentucky?
Totally destroyed.
Virginia.
I mean, kind of Ohio.
You just go.
These are red states, okay?
Kentucky and Ohio, certainly.
And so I'm walking in.
This is the morning after that trouncing.
This is the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.
She's coming.
She's like, hey, how are you?
I'm like, I'll give you a handshake.
She's like, how you doing?
I said, not that well, given that last night didn't go very well.
She says, what happened last night?
Like oblivion.
Is she saying a joke?
No, no, no.
She's saying it almost angrily, right?
Because I was like, does that even go well?
It's like she's challenging me.
She says, well, what happened last night?
Oh, okay.
Like, what happened last night?
I don't know what happened last night.
Tell me what happened last night.
And I'm just like, this is the person who's accountable for running the Republican Party.
I said, who last election?
She said, we have nothing to do with that.
Really?
I run the National Party.
These are state racists.
We have nothing to do with that.
So where's, and, and, and then, and then says, and, and then starts to like escalate her voice and says, I refuse to fall on the sword for this one.
I refuse to fall on the sword for this one.
This is not my fault.
And it's like, okay, clearly she's been, she's been criticizing.
How many minutes before you hit the stage?
Is this happening?
Oh, this is like early, this is in the morning, right?
Okay.
Like pregame prep.
You kind of go through, they show you where you're going to be standing.
Here's your microphone.
So that's where this happens.
So it's not like I surprised her on the stage.
All right.
She knew where I'm at on this.
She had already had a long morning with this topic.
Oh, of course.
And should.
I mean, 2018, loss.
2020, loss.
2022, no red wave.
2023, trouncing, total drubbing for the Republican Party.
This is the individual who's the national chairwoman.
She runs the entire Republican National Committee.
Where's the accountability?
So I get on stage and you're getting some like, you know, standard, you know, beaten up, dead old horse Donald Trump question.
I said, forget that.
Let's talk about what happened last night because last two elections, he's been out.
Republicans have gotten trounced for different reasons.
So stop blaming the boogeyman.
There's an accountability problem within the Republican Party.
And so I say on stage that Ronna McDaniel, if she wanted to come up on stage, and I meant it, if she did want to come up on stage, you know, debate, stage time is valuable, but I would still yield my time to her if she wants to use the microphone, look the American people in the eye and say she resigns, which would be good for the Republican Party.
And I believe she should resign.
So what does she say?
So then the press reports, there's people apparently sitting in her row or behind her row in front of her where she is, think about this, the neutral arbiter of the Republican National Committee later in the debate when I'm sparring with other candidates, booing when I'm speaking, clapping against other candidates when they're speaking against me.
She was booing me.
She was booing.
She's booing me at other points in the debate.
And I don't care about that, but think about your dereliction of duty.
You're supposedly the neutral arbiter of the entire National Republican Party hosting a debate.
It's like a referee cheering in the middle of a game between two teams.
It doesn't make sense.
Like if the referee is like booing or hollering in favor of one team or the other, that's what that looks like if she's the arbiter.
Then she's saying during the breaks, and this is as reported by the press.
So I wasn't there, but it's apparently sources who are around her, reported by multiple sources in the press, saying that I would not get another cent from the RNC.
Yep.
So think about what that means.
That means she believes that's her money.
These are donations she's collected from other people, but somebody said a mean thing about her, and it's not even a mean thing about her.
Someone said that we need accountability in the Republican Party, that this person who has failed us four times in a row, that there needs to be some accountability.
She says, if he says that about me, then this money that I have been a steward for, a fiduciary for, that I'm not going to give a cent to him because he said something that I didn't like about me.
That's a conflict of interest.
So then I get a question after the debate in the press room.
I don't know who it came from, but I'm presuming it's from one of the RNC aligned people, which is, how come you would go on Rana's stage, on her stage, on her stage is what they said, on her stage and criticize her like that.
My response is, that's not her stage.
And that's the problem with this party.
It doesn't belong to these corrupt establishment political creatures.
It belongs to the voters and the people of this country.
And that's where the Republican Party is badly mixed up.
Question for you.
So, no, dinner didn't go well.
But I assume you know her last name, her maiden name.
Romney.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
I think it, I think, I think she embodies it.
Let me ask a question.
When she says you can't, you know, go debate Christie, then how is she okay with DeSantis debating Newsom?
Because it's corruption, man.
You think that's what it is?
Absolutely.
It's corrupt.
Because the people who are propping up Ron DeSantis, like the super PAC money, all that says doing up.
And it's not criticizing Ron or not criticizing.
It has nothing to do with it.
It's just the system is there's tens and tens of millions of dollars in a system where supposedly the max you can give to a campaign is 3,300 bucks.
The people who have lobbied and gotten their special favors from, and it's not just Ron, it's the way politics works, that those people are the big donors to the Republican Party.
And Ron is debating another candidate who's running for U.S. president that is called Gavin Newsom, the man who's running for U.S. president, flying around doing, the funny thing about this is Gavin Newsom is not running for U.S. president in the same way that Ron DeSantis was not running for U.S. president, jaunting around on public money and private jets on matters that have nothing to do with the state.
That's what Gavin Newsom is doing now.
And as I said on the debate stage as well, to the Democratic Party, I call it Republicans, Democrats evenly, call Democrats more.
Be honest, Joe Biden's not going to be the nominee.
So who's it going to be put up, whichever other person it's going to be so we can have an honest debate?
But Ron is able to have that full-on debate on the same network, Fox.
But if they're calling me, I think what happened is at a certain point in the race, you know, around late summer, initially they're saying, oh, yeah, young guy, okay, check the box.
We got, you know, a lot of boxes.
He checks for us.
We get to say that this guy ran in the Republican Party, young guy, different generation, first generation, whatever.
Okay, we check that box.
Oh, wait, he's not going away when he's supposed to, right?
The other no-name candidates, and that was initially a no-name candidate too.
The other no-name candidates had no chance of making the first debate.
They're all off.
Nobody really paid attention to them.
Wait, this guy's sticking around.
And then, wait, he's saying some things that the establishment that has an allergic reaction to Trump, wait, he sounds a little bit like that.
This isn't supposed to happen again.
No, stop it.
Okay.
Okay.
It was cute while it lasted.
Like, make it stop.
That's sort of where they were.
And so I think there has been a concerted effort amongst the donor establishment class that has convened private summits with the Haley campaign, the DeSantis, the Scott campaigns, the Pence and others.
Christy, I'm the only person other than Trump that's not invited to these closed door forums.
There's certain debates.
We want Ron DeSantis to get his airtime.
You do it.
We're going to disqualify you from the next debate.
And then you get to the place where now, if you're critical of that party, she says we're not going to use that she, because she doesn't like what I said, it's a personal conflict of interest, is going to say you don't get another cent from the RNC.
So in a certain sense, they prove my point about the corruption to say that they view this as their money to treat it in a way that they're going to pick whoever their favorite horses are.
That's.
That's a that's very strange, for because the voter I'm sitting there saying why is?
And I even asked the governor.
I said, why are you debating Newsome?
I think a year ago made sense.
I think right now makes no sense for the two of you guys to debate.
But but Rob, do you have the clip of Ronna McDaniel being confronted about what Vivek said and what her response is?
And she said, I'm not the one running for president.
Play this clip if you could.
There were allegations uh, that were thrown on the stage by a number one of the candidates in particular, arguing that the Republican Party has a culture of blessing.
Specifically, Vivek Kamaswami called for you to resign.
Would you like to respond to that?
I'm gonna focus on beating Joe Biden.
I wish that's what all the candidates did.
I'm not running for president.
I'm very proud of the fact that under my tenure we won back the House.
We now are getting investigations into the Bidens.
I also, as Michigan chair, for the first time in 30 years, won a state that Democrats hadn't been in.
I'm very proud of the fact that we're gonna have staff in 15 states heading into 2024.
But you know I'll leave other people to attack Republicans.
I'm gonna focus on Democrats.
I will say this, we can't attack each other and win.
We need all of us.
So here's the thing.
I've a comment before.
It's really funny.
I said I hadn't seen this interview.
I saw a different interview she did on FOX or FOX Business, where literally it was yesterday morning.
She's going on air national conservative audience and said and and literally just stated as a fact that Vivek voted for Obama.
Oh yeah that's, that was that's right 100.
I can just confirm it for you, 100% false.
Never voted for Obama in my life.
So you have the chair of the RNC saying, I'm not gonna criticize the Republicans.
Then go on, go on national TV.
Say one of the Republican presidential candidates who you were booing you have in the middle of the debate oh, you have that one.
It's 11 seconds.
You can play the clip.
Oh, you guys, you guys already.
Yeah, I saw it after you.
Actually there's so.
So that was press reports of people who were sitting in her row commenting on the fact that she said that there's going to be not one cent to me from the RNC fiduciary violation.
This money thinks situation this, not one cent.
How does it actually get divvied up because you're the only candidate out there.
Yeah, that has made their money as an entrepreneur, but you don't need to tell you the truth.
I have no idea how the hell all of this sausage making works, because I've basically said, screw the system.
Now I'm that.
What does that cost me?
Eight figure sums of my wealth that we're putting into this campaign 15, 16 plus million bucks already, putting in millions more.
It's going to be tens of millions of dollars.
Certainly, by the time we're done, we're going to stop at nothing.
But that's the cost of saying screw you to a corrupt system that otherwise wants you to behave like their circus monkey, which I refuse to.
But the point is, this is a person who's running the RNC, managing other people's money, and saying that because you said something I don't like, i'm not going to give you one cent then goes on national tv and spews.
I mean, it's just a straight up factual falsehood.
Right, Vivek voted for Obama.
Is it false?
Yes, it is.
Is it damaging?
Yes, it is.
Is it done with malicious intent?
For the person who was booing at me and saying those things yes, it was.
Now am I going to go after because I have better things to do in my life?
Probably not right, but this is.
This is corrupt stuff.
Well, on the first of the day, play this real quick because it's 11 seconds.
Go ahead, Rob.
I know Vivek's kind of newer to the party.
He voted for Obama, so he may not know that.
She just flat out says I voted for Locke.
It is a lie.
I mean, look at this woman.
Bold-faced, getting up there, loses four elections for the Republican Party, pathetically going up, literally just looking the American voters, Republican voters in the eye, and telling them a bold-faced lie.
I mean, you just play that.
I just want people to cooperate because I don't want it that I'm putting words in her mouth.
I know Vivek's kind of newer to the party.
He voted for Obama, so he made it.
I mean, this is a lie.
There's only fact, without it, with an iota of basic.
Is there a way to prove that so she loses?
Yeah, actually, actually, there's a way to prove it.
Okay.
It is voting records.
Yeah, the voting record.
So actually, I was so disillusioned.
I've talked about this.
I voted libertarian when I was young in my first election.
Then I got so disillusioned from politics that it's actually public record that in both those, I don't like John McCain and I didn't like Barack Obama.
And I didn't like Mitt Romney and I didn't like Barack Obama.
So I actually didn't vote in those elections.
I sat him out.
I'm not particularly proud of that.
I was in my 20s.
I understand why many people are disillusioned from politics.
I was disillusioned back then, too.
I voted for the libertarian candidate back in 2004, and then I basically said, screw this.
I have better things to do with my life.
I'm going to be an entrepreneur.
I could care less about politics.
But then came back around to it later.
But literally, that is now public record, actual false lie.
Flat, bold-faced lie to the American people, say they won't give money.
And so that proves the corruption.
So that's the Ronnie McDaniel corruption.
But then I decided when I was on stage, okay, I'm wasting too much time on this, on this stuffed suit of a bureaucrat running the RNC.
Let's focus on the real problem, which is the equivalent, the Rona McDaniel of media.
There's many of them, Kristen Welker, sitting right there from NBC News.
And there's a connection between the two because who decides to put up the Kristen Welkers of the world to moderate a Republican debate?
It's none other than the RNC, the failed establishment that Ronnie McDale has run that's lost its last four major cycles relative to what it was supposed to do.
So that same, it's almost proof sitting on that stage.
But back back to the camera.
I don't know if people saw the rest of that.
So that's why, I mean, it is almost, they're repeatedly proving my point based on the kind of debate they were hosting and the moderators they hired to the things she's saying in the audience during the debate, to booing me during the debate, to now saying that false things I'm doing.
Who do you think would be a good RNC?
Who would be a good RNC?
Anyway, so I, I, so let's brainstorm this.
Kirk said you would be, somebody like you would be very good.
So Kirk said, I'm not a, I'm not, I'm, look, I'm in this to be the president of the United States and I think that I can lead the country best in that position.
But Charlie said that about me.
Yeah.
Well, I'll return the compliment to him.
I think he could actually do a good job of it.
I don't think it's crazy.
I don't think it's crazy, actually.
I mean, he's from a different generation.
They would not let him do it.
I mean, that's almost a credential.
So whoever they shouldn't let do it, that should be a requirement for whoever does do it to actually get put in that place.
I mean, Harmeed Dylan, very good.
She ran against Ronnie McDaniel.
She's competent.
She's a lawyer.
She understands.
And I think the lawyer thing helps because there's an element to running the elections in a way that's competitive, that you make sure it's actually run fairly for the Republicans to be able to compete.
So Harmee Dylan's a good background.
There's this guy, Scott Pressler, who's, I don't know if he's a Republican activist.
He's nowhere on the radar of the Republican National Committee, but he's a guy I've gotten to know, talked to him from time to time, tried to be very helpful in some of the other elections that have played out in the last couple of years, but a grassroots activist that has actually focused on the way elections are run.
So Scott Pressler, Harmeed Dylan.
I mean, these are all good people.
I mean, I assume Charlie wasn't serious when he suggested me, but I say in the cycle.
I think I saw somewhere him saying it.
By the way, did you have that?
There's a video of you talking to somebody.
Were you talking to her or no?
At the end of the debate, that's somebody else.
To my knowledge, I haven't talked to Rana since after the debate.
There's a lot of people piling in.
So if she was in that throng screaming something noiselessly, I have no idea what it is.
That was part of it.
That's very confusing for me.
I want to play this and then we can go into a bunch of different topics.
We got time.
Rob, pull up the three polls.
So, there's three polls I want to show you.
Okay.
First one, go to the uh uh, and by the way, before we go to this poll, let's go to our sponsor because we haven't done that yet, Rob.
Let's go to our sponsor, and then right after this, I want to show you three polls.
Each of them are contradictory of each other, and then I want to get your thoughts.
Go ahead, Rob.
So, look, I've been in the financial industry since 9-11, the day before 9-11, and I've owned stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real estate, crypto, gold, you name it, I've owned it.
But the one thing that's very important part of my portfolio all these years is gold.
I love having a percentage of my net worth in gold that I have access to in case of many different things.
That's why we chose to work with our new sponsor, American Hartford Gold.
If you have retirement funds that you cannot afford to lose, American Heart for Gold will ship physical gold or silver directly to your door.
Also, if you have retirement funds that you can't afford to lose, now is the time to call American Heart for Gold, a precious metal dealer you can trust.
They have the finest products, amazing customer service, and a buyback commitment.
They've earned a five-star rating from thousands of reviews and an A plus from the Better Business Bureau.
Tell them I sent you, and they'll send you up to $5,000 worth of free silver on your first order.
So, click on a link in the description or call 866-939-6984.
Again, 866-939-6984.
Okay, so Rob, are we back on?
Okay, if we're back on, so here's what I want to show you: I want to show you three polls, okay?
And one of them may or may not be a poll, and we'll get your thoughts on it.
So, first thing that's going around, here's uh New York Times, okay?
Who did well in the pot in the debate?
I was about to say podcast.
So, did better, score 10, Nikki Haley, then they have DeSantis, then they have Chris Christie, then I have Tim Scott, then I have you last, okay?
Yep.
Now, keep in mind, this is New York Times.
Let's go to the next one.
Is that a poll?
You know that, right?
This one.
Yeah, that's an opinion.
That's just their opinion.
Go back to it.
Go back to it.
I want to make sure that's right.
Yeah.
Opinion writers and so their own opinion writers and contributors.
Yeah.
Their own staff who writes for you.
Which is great.
By the way, to me, I see this as flippant, which is how I see it.
Well, go to the next one.
Go to this is David Pacman.
You've been on a show.
And I thought it was a very good show, the two of you guys together.
This guy's a far-left, hardcore liberal guy.
He thinks Biden's doing a fantastic job.
Can I talk to the left?
I like talking to the left.
And I thought it was a very good conversation with the two of you.
At the bottom, here is Tim Scott.
Okay.
Dennis DeSantis, then it's you, then it's Chris Christie, then Nikki Haley.
By the way, the weird thing is, Democrats, 37,000 votes.
So this is actual votes on Twitter.
Are choosing Nikki Haley, then Chris Christie, you in the middle.
This is how I process this.
On New York Times, they want him last.
On a David Pac-Man, they have you right in the middle, and they want DeSantis last, second to the last, and Tim Scott.
Okay.
So now go to a poll that we ran, and this sample size, by the time it ended up being 165,000 votes, 83% you, then DeSantis, then Haley, then Tim Scott.
We're capitalists.
So, you know, our audience is going to be an audience that are business owners, entrepreneurs, guys who like running businesses, conservative ideas.
But this one has you first, DeSantis second, Haley third.
Tim Scott, we didn't put Chris Christie because he just wasn't fighting.
I thought he was just kind of lobbying for a job.
So how do you process when you read all these articles?
New York Post.
Here's what New York Post said about you.
I didn't see that one.
Okay, well, let's read it.
If you can pull this up, Rob.
Republicans debate verdict.
Impressive.
Haley shines.
Stupid.
Vivex self-destruct.
Okay.
This is the ghost.
Impressive post.
Impressive.
Haley and stupid.
You know, it's interesting.
I would take a lot of criticisms, and it's a fascinating one.
It's never before, other than in the media's and Nikki Haley's assessments of me.
Last time she called me in the last debate, she said, I feel dumber every time I hear you speak, is what she said last time.
If you actually think about that, I understand why she feels that way.
The dumb or the stupid criticism, that's a new one for me.
You know, in this, in presidential politics.
I mean, you were a valedictorian.
You went to Harvard.
You went to Yale.
Have you ever been called stupid in your life?
That's a new experience.
That's not a word I like.
I like new experiences.
So it's interesting.
It's been an interesting word.
You know what this does, Dave?
You know what this does?
To me, there are so many other adjectives or words you can use than that.
You lose credibility using a war like that.
And this is New York Post.
It's the oldest.
It's been around for God knows how long.
And so why would they, you're a conservative.
Okay, you're calling out anti-establishment.
Doesn't this almost possibly be aware of the pressure?
But that is the New York Post Post as establishment.
But New York Post is establishment.
So who do you think they're for?
They have, phase one of the campaign, they were for Ron DeSantis.
Phase two of the campaign, they decided they're for Nikki Haley.
That's the answer.
And the really thing they're against is Trump or anything resembling what Trump was for this country.
All in, in some ways, and I respect and admire the New York Post for its reporting when the Hunter Biden laptop story came out that was suppressed.
And so, you know, it's a paper that is founded by Alexander Hamilton.
There's a lot that I've liked about it when they're going against the establishment of the left.
But the fact of the matter is, they are the establishment just with the conservative sheen.
And they've gone all in.
And I think here's the third rail for them.
I've realized this.
If you're doing the woke, anti-woke stuff and whatever, you know, I mean, I wrote this book.
They've given me plenty of favorable coverage when I'm talking about domestic issues related to being anti-woke.
It's like, yes, we're in for that crusade.
Good.
And I actually exposed a lot of the illegality of the way their own stories were suppressed about Hunter Biden.
But the real third rail is foreign policy.
If you're giving up on the interventionist, neoconservative model of liberal hegemony, that's the real third rail for these people.
And so when I've touched that third rail, and Trump touched that third rail as well, then it's gloves off, game over, because that threatens the existence of their very identity, source of power, and for people like Nikki Haley, the source of money.
So that's what I've realized in this campaign: I thought a few years ago, like when I wrote this book, Woke Inc., I thought I was hitting the third rail.
It felt like it, right?
I was a guy who was running a business.
And it's funny, these, you know, I'll put some of these other recent attacks to one side.
They're not important.
This clown called Chris Sununu, a man who is a governor of New Hampshire, New Hampshire, but is another establishment creature, is, you know, believes that somebody who speaks with the candor that I did on that stage does not reflect the temperament to be president.
Give me a break.
I mean, these people are all different versions of the same thing, showing up in different stuffed suits, somewhere heels, somewhere different kinds of heels, male heel, man heels, and women heels, but they're a bunch of stuffed suits with the same thing inside.
It's Dick Cheney 2.0.
But when I wrote that book, I felt like I was hitting the third rail as a CEO calling out the woke cancer.
And it was at the time.
Now it's much easier to criticize wokeness than it was back then.
This is in the aftermath of George Floyd's death.
But actually, here's what I've learned in this campaign.
That wasn't really the third rail.
The third rail is really going heavy on clarity that the U.S. should not be electing to enter wars, that war should never be a preference, only a necessity.
That the sole obligation of a U.S. policymaker is to U.S. citizens here in American soil, period, not to some other person in another country.
That the corruption is bipartisan and that the super PACs are a cancer in American politics.
I mean, if you're hitting these points, that's the real third rail for the establishment.
They're happy with people going hard on anti-woke, at least from the right-wing version of the establishment.
And so that's been one of my learnings in this campaign: what you think is the third rail and you're riding it, if they're really still propping you up, you're not really hitting the third rail.
They're not really getting to the depth of talking about what others aren't willing to talk about.
But I just was speaking my convictions as it relates to the war in Ukraine, which I think has been a corrupt intervention and something that has not advanced U.S. interests.
That's really where we say, oh, no, no, no, hold on, hold the phone, make sure this guy, we suppress this guy in a way that to bring it full circle was the way that we were suppressed when we reported on the Hunter Biden laptop story.
So it's interesting how that kind of comes full circle, but that's where we are today.
Why do you think they jump ship from Ron DeSantis to Nikki Haley like you said in the first part of the election?
Yeah.
The second part.
She's been very hawkish.
I think it just became quickly evident that Ron DeSantis has no, well, yeah, I mean, he has no chance.
They've concluded, I think, correctly.
I mean, I think the same is true about Nikki Haley, too.
But it became so obvious that with that much money behind him, I mean, we're talking like mega amounts of money that have never been spent in a Republican primary before.
If that couldn't lift up this dead weight that's still hanging on the ground, then, okay, that's a lost cause.
Let's just find the next puppet we can prop up.
And, you know, I think that Nikki Haley came out to be actively pro-war.
I mean, this is a woman who calls her heels ammunition.
This is a woman who, you know, I think when she comes, I mean, I felt like saying on the stage, you know, I'm not some third world nation that you want to come bomb, right?
That's what she sees.
The bombs explode, her bank account grows.
That's the kind of person that says, okay, if she has really greased the wheels of her own bank account to do the thing that we want America to be doing, that's our new puppet.
She has no chance, right?
I mean, this woman's going absolutely nowhere in this election, but it's the new thing that the establishment has chosen to see if they can't pour the same cash that they were throwing at Ron DeSantis to prop up this new puppet.
And, you know, I think this one's worse than the Ron DeSantis puppet.
Ron DeSantis, I wouldn't call him corrupt, right?
I actually think he was a good governor.
I think he's a good dude, actually, like at his heart.
I think his family is a good family.
I think he's been exploited.
I think that's actually what's happened here is this man would have just continued being the governor of this state and probably done a pretty good job of it.
And then the establishment decided, said, no, no, no, that's not your choice.
You will be the chosen one to run for president.
You don't think he wanted to?
I don't think he wanted to.
Really?
No, I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I mean, I haven't, you know, I'm giving you my opinion on this.
Certain things I can tell you are hard facts.
Everything we've talked about so far about Ron McDaniel and all that corruption, that's hard fact.
Now I'm just giving you my opinion here.
I don't think he, I don't think he in his heart would have wanted to do this or felt called to do that.
I think he was dragged into this.
And it was a form of sort of abuse of a guy who wasn't wired for this, right?
I mean, he doesn't have the personality for it.
He's not, I don't think that he has a personal appetite for it.
I think he cares about the country.
I think that he has, you know, he served the country in the military as a lawyer and otherwise he seems to be a service-oriented person.
I think he was doing a good job in Florida.
I think he cares about Florida.
You know, I think once they started putting him up to this, then it changes your mentality and you use Florida as a pedestal to then achieve national ambition.
But him left to himself without the establishment tainting him, he would have just been another of many good governors across the country.
And that's the right role for someone like him.
He's an executor.
In some ways, people use this expression and they mean it as a slight.
He's about somebody they could say he's all talk, no action.
In some ways, Ron DeSantis was, for a while, all action and no talk.
And I don't mean that as a negative.
You could take that as a positive.
But when you're talking about running for president of the United States, you have to be able to articulate a vision of who we are and where we're headed.
That's part of the job.
And that's not a guy who has it.
But they propped him up.
They forced him into it.
But I would not call him really corrupt.
I think he has to dance to the tune of his donors just because that's the way the game is played and it's the mother's milk of politics.
And so he does that like any other puppet would.
But the person who's actually corrupt in this, like outright corrupt is Nikki Haley.
Really?
Yeah, she's corrupt.
And in the way that like Joe Biden is corrupt.
Is that when you said you made money with Boeing board?
Yeah, I mean, just kind of go through the facts here, right?
I mean, just like, this is not, is somebody privately benefiting from their public service, right?
This is wrong.
It's wrong when Hunter Biden does it.
Oh, and by the way, all these people, including Nikki Haley, will talk about Hunter Biden.
Interesting how that works.
Joe Biden's son, she's happy to talk about him.
Without talking about the corruption in her own family.
So she's governor of South Carolina does special favors for this company called Boeing her entire time while she's in office.
After her time in public service, she has a nice little cushboard seat ready, warm, waiting for her at Boeing.
A private company, a private company flies around a private jet.
I think it was some nephron pharmaceuticals some pharmaceutical company.
I forget what name it was.
I'd never heard of it.
It's not even some major company.
And I was come from that industry, but it's some random company that's getting, I don't know what the name of it is that I haven't heard of.
Okay, but flying her around on their private jet, making their private jet available to her, get state contracts from that governor.
And I could go on.
I mean, this is just a consistent pattern.
Okay, this person has repeatedly milked and done favors for people who have scratched her back.
She does her short-lived, you know, cup of coffee stint at the UN.
Okay.
Very short-lived stint.
Her real foreign policy experience wasn't her time at the UN.
It was the millions she made afterwards.
After she steps down, her family starts a military contracting firm, Allied Defense LLC.
If the mainstream press were doing the decisions, Allied defense should have to disclose who their clients are.
I did something that normal business people don't do.
I've put up 20 years of my tax records, personal tax filings.
She should put up 20 years of her personal tax filings and put up the clients of Allied Defense LLC.
If you're running for U.S. president, tell us who the damn clients are of the military contractor that you started, presumably using your connections from the U.N. starts the military contracting firm, starts, again, then serving on the board of Boeing, ends up given secretive speaking fees from foreign actors while also running a military contracting firm.
Think about that.
It's Hillary Clinton on steroids.
You could just go down the list.
She's somebody who literally during this presidential campaign, as far as I know, it's unprecedented in U.S. presidential election history, collecting corporate stock options while running for U.S. president.
And now she's a multimillionaire.
And by the way, what I left out was at the time she left the UN, she and her family were drowning in debt.
By the way, for somebody who's an accountant, that's a discussion for another day.
But goes from being and wants to run the U.S. and says that she's the candidate who's going to fix our national debt problem, comes out of government, drowning in personal debt, uses connections to start a military contracting firm without naming their clients.
Somebody who actually then joins the board of Boeing, the company who's back, she's scratched forever while governor of South Carolina, another military contractor, speaking fees, including with foreign actors, Hillary Clinton style, collecting stock options while running for U.S. president, all of that.
Then he merges just like Joe Biden, a multimillionaire.
These are not the people, whether it's Biden or Haley, these are not the people we should want deciding whether to send your kids to die fighting somebody else's war.
It's disqualifying.
At the very least, be transparent about it.
And then you get to the question of the press.
Where is the press asking the questions?
Okay.
What are the clients of Allied Defense LLC?
It's a dereliction of your duty as the certainly conservative press to ask that basic question.
Why shouldn't the American people know who are the clients of the military contracting firm that her fortune bumps up eightfold, becomes a multi-millionaire, exploiting her connections at the time at the UN, now running to be commander-in-chief on a hawkish worldview, marching us into World War III?
We deserve to know.
And yet, the same establishment that props up Ron McDaniel as the chair of the RNC, the same establishment that hires the likes of Christian Welker to run that debate, the same establishment that tried to prop up Ron DeSantis, but realized that even reams of millions could not lift up that dead weight.
So now has shifted to Nikki Haley, does not want other people like me asking that question, which is why they're so keen to silence me.
And that's why she called you scum.
Oh, yeah.
And I think it's a lot of projection going on.
Yeah, because you're not projection.
You're not the wallet, though.
If you think about it, Vivek, everybody in that stage was pro-war.
And Pat made a point about a month ago when you see.
Yeah, when you see a hospital, Vivek, all those rooms, they're in business.
They need sick people to be in there.
We need a war.
And it's a conflict of interest.
If you're a defense contracting, your whole family, her husband, Michael Haley, owns one.
You become president.
Vivek, would you put legislation to not have that happen?
All of this corruption should be banned.
You should not be able to lobby the government for 10 years until after you've left the government.
If you have regulated a company or done a deal with a company, as you do in South Carolina with Boeing, you absolutely should never be able to join the board of that company, certainly not for 10 or 20 years.
You shouldn't be able to trade individual stocks with your own individual investment discretion if you're a congressman or a regulator of that specific industry.
Yeah, or Nancy Pelosi.
But here's the thing, man, because I have been very critical of the corrupt Democratic establishment, the Pelosi's, the Bidens, the Hillary Clintons of the world.
But I can't do that with credibility if we have the same problem in our own house, but then you're not supposed to talk about it.
Okay.
And here's the thing that, you know, the Republican Party claims to be the party that is against identity politics.
I mean, there's an unspoken rule in the Republican Party that if you have two X chromosomes, you got to be careful about going after her.
And I get that.
I mean, the political consulting class tells me that as well in the first couple of debates.
Yeah, I probably got the bad advice, but she's been, I mean, she's called me four-letter words each of the last few debates, but there's a certain thing if you have two X chromosomes, somehow you're immune from criticism.
That's not what the Republican Party stands for.
Identity politics.
If you're running for U.S. president, you can't handle the heat.
You stay out of the kitchen.
You want to sit across the table from Xi Jinping?
You better be able to confront basic questions like your tax returns or how you made your money or who the clients of Allied Defense LLC are and how that relates to your foreign policy that, frankly, makes more money by taking us to war.
And I think that these are real questions we got to get into.
Let's talk foreign policy.
Let's talk foreign policy.
So Israel, Hamas, Palestine, you're seeing what's going on.
There are numbers being reported, what's taking place.
Erdogan's coming out saying he's declaring Israel war criminals as Turkey rallies behind Hamas.
We're seeing the protesting all over the place.
You're seeing U.S. forces under fire in the Middle East as America slides towards Brink.
A defective drone launched by an Iranian-backed militia targeted U.S. forces at the Airbuild air base in Iraq, but failed to detonate, sparing casualties.
This incident was one of 40 drones and rocket attacks on U.S. troops by Iranian-backed militias in response to American support for Israel during the Gaza war.
We can keep hearing about these stories.
One open-ended question.
What's your position with what's going on here?
How would you, if you were the president right now, how would you put a stop to this?
So, Jose, there's so much to talk about here.
We got time, though.
Absolutely.
Oh, my goodness.
This isn't cable news.
I like this.
No, it's not.
It's good.
So there's no buzzer that goes off in 30 seconds?
No.
You mean that?
Okay.
Yes.
And this is what this is why this new media is important, by the way, is they hate that I come on these kinds of, I mean, I go on all these podcasts.
Something that we'll say here, here's how it works.
Here's the gameplays.
Cable news does not like that you all exist.
And so they create a disincentive for candidates like me to come on here.
Why?
They're going to take something I say here, happens every time, airlift it out of the context of the conversation that we're having, and then put it on the three-minute or two-minute version that they have, or 30-second version that they have, which is their mode of media.
And they know that that purposefully distorts what the candidate says, which creates a disincentive for candidates to actually engage in real human conversation.
And that's why other people, even when they show up in podcasts, are coming and stuff suits.
That being said, let's talk about foreign policy because this is the third rail.
So here's my view.
My job as U.S. president is to look after the interests of Americans here in the homeland.
I don't think that should be controversial, but that's my view.
I think the job of Israel's president is to look after the citizens of Israel.
And I think that we're an ally of Israel.
And what do we do as an ally of Israel?
I think it is to provide diplomatic support without military intervention.
And so all of this stuff about sending this kind of aid or that, I think it's better for Israel and better for the United States if we mind our affairs and they mind theirs, but we give them the diplomatic support they need to say, you get to do whatever you need to to defend your homeland.
I think that's what I said in the stage.
I mean, if I was on the phone with BB, I'd tell them, you know what?
If you need to smoke the terrorists at your southern border that are invading and threatening your country, you go do that.
And I'm going to be smoking the terrorists that are trying to smoke this country on our southern border if they're entering here and attacking our country in the same way that they're attacking yours.
That's what I'm going to do.
You do you.
And we'll give you the diplomatic support without the UN or anybody else second-guessing your decisions and micromanaging you or us micromanaging you.
And I think that's part of where we muddy the waters is when we give them some kind of check, but then we have to then become the backseat driver, the armchair quarterback, and then also have to assume and bear implicit responsibility for what does or doesn't happen.
I don't think that's good for the U.S. and I don't think that's good for Israel.
And actually, you know, I want people to understand this.
The founding vision of Israel, the George Washington figure in Israel was a guy by the name of David Ben-Gurion.
He was the founder of Israel.
The whole premise in the founding of Israel, he said basically words to this effect.
He was an eloquent man, about five feet tall, but a big man, a mighty man, who said, we don't want to depend on the sympathies of the West or anybody else, the United States or anybody else.
I want a country where we will defend our own existence without depending on anybody else to do it.
That was the premise of Israel.
So I think that this whole idea, now as U.S. president, I think it's totally messed up that we're giving foreign aid to any country whose national debt per capita is less than ours.
But from an even Israel perspective, that was the founding vision of Israel itself.
So my view on here's what I would do is let Israel do whatever Israel needs to do to defend itself.
My job as the U.S. is to look after American interests.
We'll give them diplomatic support to be able to do that.
But don't intervene militarily.
And that makes it clear to Iran.
So I can say publicly to Iran, you stay the hell out and we'll stay out and we'll let the IDF get its job done.
In the meantime, because you read some of those headlines, if you hit us, the United States of America, if you hit our sons and daughters on military bases, our troops who are serving this country, if you actually hit them, we will hit you, whoever that is, whichever group that is.
We will hit that group back, the person who actually hit us, 10 times harder.
This is against the backdrop of my view that we shouldn't be in places like Syria and Iraq in the first place.
We were told we left Syria and Iraq.
Now we find out we've got, what, thousand, couple thousand people in places that we were told that we were left sitting there as sitting ducks and targets to get hit.
So that shouldn't have been there in the first place, but I'm always pro-American here.
If you hit us, we will hit you back.
But what's interesting is there's also an interesting story.
I don't know when Trump gave this speech, it was in Texas recently, I want to say, where he recounted, I think, an interesting story that went underreported.
You guys should probably find it and pull it up at some point.
It was interesting, where he told the story of after they took out Soleimani, the Iranians gave him a message or gave the White House a message that, hey, listen, we have to have pride here.
We're going to hit back, but we're not actually going to hit you.
We're going to send some missiles, but it's not going to hit anything.
And that's exactly what happened.
These are like very precise missiles they send up and then they explode in the air without hitting their actual targets when, in fact, these are very reliable, precise missiles.
So in a certain sense, and that was interesting.
It was fascinating.
He hadn't told that story before.
I hadn't, I mean, I think certainly the government hadn't told that story before.
And so it's interesting where the responsible job of a U.S. president is to advance our interest, to be strong, to protect Americans.
But it's not in our national interest to automatically sleepwalk our way into World War III.
So for the people who are saying that because Iran funds, you know, Hamas or Hezbollah or the Houthis or other groups, and those groups hit Israel, that that gives the U.S. a reason, like the Lindsey Grahams of the world that make this argument, to preemptively strike Iran.
Think about that logic.
According to that logic of proxy warfare, Russia would have the right to hit the United States now because we're funding Ukraine to hit Russia.
So those messed up theories of proxy war, that's how you get to World War III.
And I think it is a vital national interest.
So we have this, we have this thing I rolled out the night before the debate.
It's our no to neocons pledge.
Actually, people should go there.
We're not asking for money or anything else.
Just sign the pledge if you're on board.
No to neocons.com.
Okay.
And every person who is a political appointee in my administration will have to sign it.
Yeah, there's this.
There's the no to neocons pledge, no to neocons.com.
You go there.
Just scroll down.
This is not controversial stuff.
If you scroll down to the three elements of this pledge, avoiding World War III is a vital national objective.
Maybe Nikki Haley agrees with me on that, disagrees with me on that, but I think most people agree with me on that.
War is never a preference, only a necessity.
Well, for those for whom war is a preference, you know, from Karl Rove to, you know, John Bolton to Lindsey Graham to Nikki Haley, they will disagree on that.
War is never a preference, only a necessity.
Okay, that's number two.
Number three is the sole duty of U.S. policymakers is to U.S. citizens.
So again, these things should not be controversial, but I will require any political appointee in my administration to make sure they're aligned with these three elements of a basic foreign policy vision.
But that's what puts me at odds with most of the Republican Party.
How close are we?
I think we're closer than we've ever been in our lifetime, Patrick.
In our lifetime, okay, I got you.
And so, you know, where you sit down and you run a company, you're like, okay, we're negotiating with XYZ.
We want the price to be this.
If we push a little too much, they may walk away.
We don't want them to walk.
We want them to stick around.
How far do we want to go?
What's the risk we want to do?
And are you kind of making decisions?
What could tip them off?
What could cause them to do something?
If you were to say this could cause World War III, these three things could cause World War III.
What would those things be?
So I'll give you a couple principal answers, and I'll give you a couple fact answers.
Sure.
The principal answer, how you get to World War, is World War is rarely, it's never in the interest of any of the countries who enter it.
So that means it's a tripwire that accidentally forces a bunch of people into a situation that's not actually in their individual interest.
You could call it a collective action problem.
Here's how world wars happen.
Vague red lines.
So when you don't know what somebody's actual red lines are, then you accidentally end up doing things that cross somebody's red line without knowing it.
So my view is the U.S. has operated according to this model of strategic ambiguity.
I think we need strategic clarity.
Be crystal clear and mean it.
As I said, if you hit us, including our sons and daughters who are troops, stationed wherever they are, we will hit you, not some other vague other actor.
We will hit you 10 times harder.
That's a clear red line.
That's how you avoid world wars.
Now, I think the other thing you got to look at is, is it my job to be a global policeman?
If so, that's a clear path to world war because you have conflicts that don't relate to your self-interest.
Or is it my path only to look after my self-interest?
So if you start with the first premise that it's in everybody's, every nation's self-interest to avoid world war and every nation is only acting in their self-interest, then you avoid that world war scenario.
So now let's get really specific.
What are the series of events that could lead us here?
One thing we're doing right now that increases the risk of world war is that our policies are driving Russia further into China's hands.
And in order to have a world war, what you need is two different super, at least two different superpowers, neither of whom can obviously prevail in victory over another one.
I think that the U.S. vis-a-vis China alone or the U.S. vis-a-vis Russia alone actually is objectively going to be stronger than each alone.
But if Russia and China are allied, as we're forcing them to be, and I'll explain how, then they could arguably outmatch the United States because Russia has nuclear capacity ahead of that of the U.S. Russia has hypersonic missile capabilities ahead of the U.S. What does hypersonic missile travel faster than the speed of sound, carrying potential nuclear loads that could hit the United States?
China's naval capacity is arguably ahead of that of the United States.
And we then depend on China's economy for our modern way of life.
And so China and Russia are already in an alliance with one another, but we're driving Russia further into China's hands.
How?
By isolating Russia economically, so they need more China.
If we've cut off the West, they need to actually depend on China economically.
How?
We're arming Ukraine to the teeth to fight Russia.
That's why China's arm, I mean, arming Ukraine.
That's why China's then arming Russia.
Again, driving them further into China's hands militarily.
Economically and militarily, the policies we have adopted are driving Russia further into its military alliance with China.
We made a commitment.
James Baker, the U.S. Secretary of State did in 1990 to Gorbachev, who led the USSR, that NATO would expand not one inch.
It's like Ronald McDaniel's not one cent commitment to me.
Not one inch past East Germany.
Well, we haven't kept that.
NATO's expanded more after the fall of the USSR than it has ever after.
Again, then encircling Russia, or at least from Putin's perception, driving them further into a need for military alliance with China.
So that's the number one precipitating factor here is the Russia-China alliance that raises the risk of World War III.
And then if you combine that with these vague rules of proxy war, the vague rules of proxy war are, well, we're saying in the Middle East that if somebody pays a group to hit somebody who's allied with us, that gives us the right to preemptively hit them.
If we do that and act on that, that automatically is then Russia's justification for doing the same in return to us.
And then if I'm U.S. president, I have to stick to my principle, because if you hit us, I will hit you back 10 times harder, whoever you are.
And I will always keep that.
Well, then we hit Russia 10 times harder than they hit us.
That's world war right there, allied with China.
And by the way, the wild card in all of this is you have nuclear weapons involved.
We have the first nuclear nonproliferation agreement that's absent.
It's the first time we've had no nuclear nonproliferation agreement between the U.S. and Russia since the early 1970s.
And then China's sitting here when we're wearing thin in Ukraine and Middle East to go after Taiwan, which is in our vital interest.
So again, here, I've done something that no other presidential candidate has.
I'm clear.
We will defend Taiwan.
That's different than the U.S. policy in both parties right now, which is strategic ambiguity.
I think we need strategic clarity.
Draw that red line.
We will defend Taiwan at least until, for the foreseeable future, at least until we have achieved semiconductor independence.
Because if China's squatting on the semiconductor supply chain, then they have an economic gun to our head.
You can't be using that phone, that computer, that camera, these lights.
We have to depend on China and ask them for permission.
Now, one company, TMSC, linchpin until all of the chip fabs get built in the United States and the brain power that's going to be designing those chips are back in the United States.
Or at least in Korea and Japan and the United States.
If you look at the market share of global reliance, Taiwan is the most overweight in any industry you could ever lay out.
Totally.
And it's sad that we got to where we are, but we are where we are.
And so my view is that that then becomes a precipitating factor because, again, it's strategic vagueness, right?
China doesn't know what we're going to do.
Versus if you say outright no, you do not do this for the foreseeable future, at least until we're semiconductor independent.
And after that, we will resume our current position of strategic ambiguity, a current position, resume it later.
This is how you avoid World War III.
And I'm deeply worried that we have, and I know that was a lot going on there.
And so, you know, there's a lot of different factors and foreign policy is complicated.
And I understand why the likes of the neocon hawks like Nikki Haley would say, I feel dumber every time you speak.
Yep.
I understand you can't process all of that because you want to go to war and make money and put more money in your bank account as a consequence of it.
I get that.
That's fine.
It's why these people should never come within spitting distance of the White House.
But we are closer to World War III than we have ever been in any of our lifetimes in this room, of those of us who are in this room.
And I think that that requires a president who at least states that as a commitment and has a clear vision of how to do it.
And Vivek, funny that you, it's not funny, but you were talking right when you said China, Russia, and that alliance.
Just two days ago, Putin met with the senior Chinese general and they're hailing ties of growing military ties.
Yep.
That was just two days ago.
And they're doing joint military exercises off the coast of Alaska.
Right now they're doing that.
It's literally, it's, it's, this is people here in this country, we have been lulled into submission.
So if everything I said isn't scary enough, let me just say one more thing to wake people up.
World War III is scary, but I want to now put a fine point on this.
This is not hyperbole.
If Russia and China are in a military alliance with each other and we enter World War III, I want people to understand what that means.
That means the United States of America as we know it could cease to exist.
With two nuclear allied superpowers, I want people to understand this.
It's not some vague idea, avoid World War III.
No, like this country that we know, 250 years in, the greatest country, I believe, known to man, to secure freedom, to advance human beings, to allow human beings to achieve the maximum of their potential, that gift to human history that we have the blessing to live in today, that nation will be at a high likelihood of ceasing to exist if we enter World War III right now.
Why do I say that?
Because that same foreign policy establishment that led us to Iraq and Afghanistan and spend $7 trillion and kill tens of thousands of our sons and daughters fighting somebody else's war, which is a mistake.
And I don't want that Dick Cheney ghost of the past to come retake over the Republican Party like they're trying to with the Nikki Haleys of the world who are doing it now.
That same foreign policy establishment, as they were doing those things, failed to protect the borders of this country.
Failed on cyber defenses, completely missing.
Failed on, and I want people to understand this with a country like Iran could hit us with the super EMP, an electromagnetic pulse attack.
What does that mean?
It takes out our electric grid in a matter of days.
You could have millions of Americans impoverished instantly if our electric grid is taken out.
You could have tens of millions of Americans impoverished instantly if our entire electric grid is taken out.
Space-based defenses.
Russia and China both have space-based offensive capabilities.
We have neither meaningful space-based offensive or defensive capabilities when it comes to space-based nuclear capabilities.
So cyber, super EMP, space, border, missile defenses, all missing.
So our homeland is as vulnerable as we have been in a long time.
Russia has actually been accumulating nuclear weapons at a much faster pace, way faster pace than the United States.
Hypersonic missiles that beat old outdated missile defense systems.
Against this backdrop, do you really want to march away to World War III?
It's bad enough to say, I want to send $200 billion of our taxpayer money so that some Ukrainian mid-level kleptocrat can buy a bigger house because that's what's been going on so far.
Well, we're $34 trillion in the hole over here.
Bad enough here.
And that's all bad enough.
But that's not even the biggest risk here.
Biggest risk is at a moment where we're bankrupt, where we have no industrial capacity in the United States, and the foundation of war is absolutely economics.
And we have the economic backbone not to fight this war right now from an industrial capacity standpoint.
But our own homeland is as porous and vulnerable as it is.
And so there's a reason why younger people do not like the idea of going to war, right?
Young people who are disaffected from politics, you want to pay attention right now?
It's going to be a gun over your shoulder while you're sitting in some trench, dying in a World War III, or at worst, even somebody else's war that gets us there along the way.
If you put the people in charge in either party, right?
It used to be that we would have one party on one side and one party on the other side of this issue.
Now it's even, this is another factor domestically that could increase the risk of World War III.
It's not like you have a Democrat Party that's against a pro-war Republican Party or a pro-American interest Republican Party that's against wars that the Democrat Party is pushing.
We also live in a moment now where even as we're having this election and tug of war between two parties and, you know, who's going to defeat Joe Biden and Ron McDaniel talking about defeating Joe Biden to deflect from her own failures as a leader here, that's it's all a deflection because both parties agree on the pro-war agenda right now.
That is another danger that increases the risk of World War III.
And they say the most dangerous ideas in Washington are the bipartisan ones.
Well, this is the most dangerous idea of our generation.
And I think that the policies that they're advancing of arming Ukraine and otherwise to the teeth, driving Russia further into China's hands, yes, our own policymakers are driving us into World War III where the risk of doing so is at the highest point it's ever been in our life and at a moment where we could very well lose it, which means our nation ceases to exist.
And there isn't a single person in either political party laying that out for the American people who will be left holding the bag, suffering and possibly dying as a result of it.
And the worst part about this is the Nikki Haleys of the world.
I mean, she'll send our own sons and daughters to go die so she can buy a bigger house, just like that Ukrainian kleptocrat.
That's corrupt.
And I think that that needs to end.
You know what it makes me think about when five years ago you voted, maybe not five years ago, 10 years ago when you voted, you're voting Democrat versus Republican.
And Republicans had the reputation of pro-war party and all this other stuff.
And for longest time, that's what the case was.
Totally.
And then gradually, 2016, 2015, things changed.
And then all of a sudden you started noticing this isn't about Democrat against Republican.
It never got this public.
Remember, social media is one of the best things that ever happened because it exposes everybody.
I mean, a guy like you, you take social media out, you're not going to be on the debate stage.
They won't give it to you because you're not.
So social media became the great equalizer for a guy like you to come out and call these guys out.
Today is the ultimate establishment versus the anti-establishment vote.
So on December 6th, we're doing the town hall with RFK.
What are your thoughts with RFK?
RFK, if you want to pull this up, Robs, you know, on yesterday, tired of Biden and Trump, 10% of swing state voters are back in RFK.
He was watching a debate and he actually liked some of the things that you said.
I don't know if you saw when he was commenting.
Yeah, so what are your thoughts about him and who does he hurt?
What does this say about today's election?
Is he a modern day Ross Pro or is this a completely different case study of an independent candidate?
So I like his spirit.
I like a lot of his, the spirit I like is the willingness to challenge the establishment in what was his own party.
I think his commitment to speaking about topics that the Democratic Party doesn't want him speaking about.
And I think of all of the other candidates, I mean, I don't think he has offered the clarity of exact foreign policy that I have, if I may say so.
And I don't know that he's in the details on this stuff, but his instincts are at least understanding that World War III is a really bad option to the United States.
So I appreciate those things about him.
We have some policy disagreements.
Those are less important than what I'm about to say.
I mean, he has in the past, I think, said things like, and maybe he doesn't mean it anymore, but he has said things like people who spread climate disinformation should be put in jail.
Look, I think the whole climate change agenda is a hoax.
We can have that discussion and let alone, even if you didn't agree with that, the answer to speech you disagree with is not censorship.
And on a good day, RFK knows that too.
You know, he believes in affirmative action and racial reparations.
I'm against a lot of that.
I think it's divisive.
It's toxic.
We have plenty of share of policy agreements, but at least I think his heart is in the right place.
And he's somebody who is unafraid to challenge orthodoxies.
And I respect that about him.
I just wish he wasn't so scared of me.
Why do you think he's scared of you?
Oh, I mean, the number of networks.
I mean, you should, I don't know if the dates work out.
You could actually offer him the same thing.
I mean, I can't tell you the number of podcasts, networks, et cetera, that have said, hey, would you have an open discussion with RFK?
I said, absolutely, I would do it.
And every time he backs out of it, and I think that, look, I think that if somebody sees the way that I'm going after other Republican candidates on the debate stage, I actually would not, that would not be my treatment of RFK.
I think we would have, in a different format, more of a conversation like you and I are having.
And so I think that he, I don't, I mean, I could understand why if somebody's building their brand, they don't want the anti-establishment sheen to wear off if you're getting, you know, called out.
But I would, my goal wouldn't be to call him out on this stuff.
We have some disagreements, but let's have actually, I think he's probably the one person in American politics.
And I actually put in some sense Donald Trump in this category too, but that's about it.
Who you can actually end up having a conversation that's unscripted and you could actually be much more mutually respectful about your disagreements.
And so, you know, I'd pledge to say that if he, you know, manned up and agreed to one of those things, I would, my goal would not be to play gotcha with him.
I mean, here's just a fact of the matter is that different people are different leaders of different styles, right?
I can't speak for him, but he's not in the details, right?
In terms of domestic policy or foreign policy or the how.
I'm a CEO by nature.
I, you know, enjoy writing, reading these books and things like this.
And so I am a details guy, but my goal will not be to the extent that part of his concern would be because I'm in the details, play gotcha games with him.
That's not, that wouldn't be the point.
The point would be to actually have a conversation that advances true discourse in the country in a way that challenges a bipartisan establishment that's, by and large, equally corrupt.
And I think he gets that and I respect him for that.
But I think that, you know, if he's running to be president and this man wants to, and I don't think he thinks or anyone thinks he's going to, I don't think he believes he's in this to win.
I think he believes in this to move the conversation.
But if he's running for president, you want to sit across the table from Xi Jinping and you're an advocate for free speech.
You know, I haven't been the one, you know, I mean, I've just been networks that have repeatedly been pounding both of us.
Every time I say yes, and every time it's, oh, he didn't want to do it.
And I think that that's a little bit unbecoming of him because this is a guy.
I love the fact that he's fearless.
Go all the way with being fearless.
And that's what I would say.
And so maybe he will.
And so I want to give him room for that.
But that's all I would say is that when he's going to see, he'll see this.
Who do you think?
He's a good dude.
He's a good dude.
And he's, you know, we have our disagreements, but my only advice to him would be, if you're going to be a free speech guy, go free speech all the way.
Don't do this climate change misinformation censorship garbage.
If you want to practice free speech.
Give credit creditors.
Zuvivec makes some good points on Ukraine.
Glad to see some of the awareness of the Republican Party.
Who do you think he helps or hurts?
It's a little bit of a light touch understatement there.
Because I think the good points on Ukraine is we got to go deep into the details.
And it's not just on Ukraine, but broader foreign policy.
But he's a thoughtful guy.
And so I think a lot of good would come out of an open conversation.
But I just think if you're running for U.S. president, this applies to me, applies to everybody.
Hold me to the standard.
Call me out if I'm not doing this at some point too.
Right.
And I get it because my sense is if you look at the people who are running his campaign, you got a lot of swamp creatures from prior Democratic establishment campaigns.
And I have, you know, I get this.
If you're surrounded by an establishment that can still shave off a little bit of the edge, I'd say bring back the inner you and let's actually lay it out on the table.
And so, yeah, if you talk to him, I would just, my encouraging, the thing I would do, and I've talked to him a couple times in this campaign.
I think that, you know, he's doing a lot of important things.
You guys have spoken?
Yeah, we've spoken a few times.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I told him the same thing when I talked to him too, is practice what you preach when it comes to free speech.
And free speech is about a culture and an example that you set for the country.
You know, Barry Goldwater, I think, was it him and JFK, whoever it was, I mean, they talked about potentially flying around the country on the same plane, you know, do Lincoln Douglas style debates.
I mean, that doesn't happen in this country anymore.
And I think there's an opportunity to set a good example, but you got to man up.
And there's some risk involved in every conversation you have.
But you got to take that on in a way that advances the interests of the country.
And if you want to sit across the table from Xi Jinping or whoever else, I think you got to show the people you're fit enough to sit across the table from somebody who has different opinions than you and may have different knowledge base than you.
And that's a good thing if both people are approaching it.
I think if there's a leader's bulletin in who has agreed to face off anybody the most, anybody opposing, supporting anybody, you're number one, okay, and that.
I think number two would be RFK.
And then it's just everybody else.
It's going to become, I give DeSantis credit for being here.
Haley didn't want to be here.
We invited Nikki Haley.
She didn't want to come and talk on a podcast on doing long form.
I don't know if she's done any long form podcasts herself.
It's all going to be pre-vetted, pre-scripted.
You know, I'm sure there'll be a lot of rules.
You have to send the questions in advance.
And by the way, to give credit to DeSantis, nothing was off the table.
They just said, hey, ask the question.
I do give credit.
Especially for a guy like him where he's not naturally comfortable doing that, or at least wasn't.
You know, you got to give credit with credits too.
I agree with that.
Yeah.
You've mentioned Xi multiple times.
I'm not sure if you saw the breaking news that Biden is planning on meeting him in San Francisco in the coming weeks.
Obviously, this is the most consequential relationship in the world.
You've talked about what's going on with China.
You've talked about clarity, right?
Sort of the premise of that meeting is they don't want any surprises.
They want to have reestablished military connections or communications.
They want to address climate change.
They want to address open borders and drugs and fentanyl that's coming across, drug trafficking, South China Sea.
What do you envision?
What do you see happening with Biden and Xi next week or when it happens?
I think Xi Jinping will be running circles around Joe Biden.
I think it's just, it's a capability issue at the top right now in the United States of America.
I mean, the climate change agenda is part of what China uses to laugh at and trample and stomp all over the face of the United States of America.
I mean, there's a word in Mandarin.
It's called Baitzu.
You know what it means?
Refers to progressive white people in the United States.
Doesn't apply to me, some of you guys.
But it's like a derisive term.
How do you say it?
It's B-A-I-Z-U-O, if you're looking it up.
I'm not fluent Mandarin, but it'd be something like Baizu, Baitzu, something like that.
And so there it is.
Yeah, actually, yeah.
White.
It's a derogatory Chinese neologism.
Western leftism.
Western leftism.
I think it's actually very specific to white in particular.
That'd be such a baizu.
Yeah.
No, I don't think so.
They're referring to the kind of people who support, who support Biden, actually.
So, so, and, and, and to some extent, Biden falls into this category.
So the climate change agenda, the idea of putting climate change in that, this is the useful idiot.
Yeah.
There was in Russia.
Right.
Because they're the modern version of the useful idiot.
Idiotic liberals right there.
Second line.
It is.
It's the communist, useful idiot.
Yes.
Exactly.
So when I hear climate change on that agenda, that's useless for the United States because that's just a way for China to run laps around us while we're flogging ourselves.
And, you know, I think that that's kind of what they've done on some of these issues of race and human rights.
I mean, a couple of years ago, what was Xi Jinping saying?
Black Lives Matter shows the United States is no better when he's questioned about putting a million religious minorities Uyghurs in concentration camps and subjecting them to forced sterilization and communist indoctrination and worse.
So I think that because of that self-hatred that exists in the United States today, particularly on the left, China understands the useful idiot, the Baitzuo, to be able to exploit that psychological insecurity back against us.
And because Biden is so obsessed with self-flogging the United States for our modern way of life and our sins of systemic racism and everything else dating back to the apologist agenda that the modern progressive left embraces, that puts China at a competitive advantage in any discussion that looks like the one they're about to have.
My discussion with Xi Jinping would be different.
Yeah.
You want to know what that would look like?
You unleashed hell on the world with the COVID-19 pandemic.
We know it was a lab leak.
You lied about it.
The only question is, was it intentional?
If you don't tell me now and we find out separately, there's going to be even bigger consequences than there are already going to be.
We know it was intentional because, well, here's what it's going to be.
Financial consequences of the highest order using every financial lever we have available.
If we don't hold you accountable for that, then we know we can expect worse in the future, and I'm not going to expect worse in the future.
Financial consequences using every lever available up to and including the national debt held by China.
We will extract our appropriately due reparation for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Oh, and by the way, you're not playing by the same set of rules.
They're going to be kicking you out of the WTO and any sort of relation from a trade perspective with the U.S. unless you're playing by the same set of rules.
No IP theft, no data theft, no forced technology transfers from American companies, no turning our companies into lobbying pawns, none of that until we're playing by the same set of rules or else we're done.
And by the time I show up at that meeting, I'm going to have done my homework.
We're already onshore into the United States and we've already bolstered relationships with Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and otherwise, such that he knows when I'm sitting across the table from him, I'm not BSing him, right?
We have a stronger hand than he does.
That's worse for him than it is for us.
And so then he has to fold, and he knows that.
But he has to know that when he shows up, which means you got to do your homework before you show up at that meeting.
The other thing I will say is: don't you touch and come within spitting distance of the idea of annexing Taiwan anytime in the foreseeable future because we will defend, at least until we have semiconductor independence in this country, because you will not hold an economic gun to our head.
I know that's the wet dream that China has.
Nope, we're not going to let you do that.
It's not going to happen on my watch.
And then after we have semiconductor independence, we'll resume our current position of strategic ambiguity and see what that looks like in the future.
You know, this is what's scary about this election: that no one is paying attention to it.
Because, and what you left out, I know you didn't leave it out.
You just didn't list it there, which is also tie your damn currency to trade and float with the international currency markets, right?
Because China is manipulator number one in every different direction, but it's not just the currencies.
It's manipulation of data transfers.
It's manipulation of every set of rules.
You're correct on every point.
I was just adding currency to that.
I think that if China senses that there is a conservative victory with someone's going to sit at the table and put those cards down, they will move on China before November 1st of next year before November 1st of next year because they have to.
They need that because everything you're talking about here says, okay, first of all, I'm stopping your repayments.
Now I'm stopping on trillions of T-bills.
I'm doing this and this and this.
They are tightened up so many ways.
You're so correct.
They have to move on Taiwan before the election.
If someone like you is leading in those polls, it's a funny story.
I haven't shared this before.
There was a former leader of another nation, former head of state, as an event.
He approached me afterwards.
He said, you know, they're not happy that an Indian American, and particularly you, is running for U.S. president.
I said, oh, you know that from having known them.
He's like, no, no, I know that from knowing it now.
I said, okay, well, it's interesting to know.
You know, China's, you know, I don't think our adversaries are going to like it very much if you have somebody who's in office that can't be exploited in the way that Biden is.
However, I will give the world, our allies and adversaries and our own citizens, the same message.
That's what makes it credible.
Our sole obligation is to protect U.S. citizens here at home.
It's interesting how much more credible your message is.
Your allies can take it more seriously.
Your adversaries can take your red lines more seriously.
Our citizens can take it more seriously.
If you're actually saying the same thing to everybody, my sole obligation as the U.S. president, my moral obligation is to the Americans here at home.
And everything that I'm going to draw is a hard red line, tracks that, and that's how you know I'm going to keep it.
And so they will take it more seriously.
And I don't think World War is in China's interest, and I don't think World War is in America's interest.
And I don't think it's in Russia's interest, and I don't think it's in any nation's interest.
And so the way we avoid it is by having those clear red lines, clear answers about what we will and won't do.
Don't drive our adversaries in different ways into alliances with one another.
Get Russia out of China's hands.
Be very clear with our own people that war is never a preference for us.
It's only ever going to be a necessity.
That avoiding World War III is a vital objective, and then we protect our own homeland enough to say, God forbid there's a major conflict in the future, we know that we're not as vulnerable as we are today.
Those are the basic next steps when it comes to foreign policy of the next U.S. president.
And then reducing that economic dependence on China is an easy win that we can deliver along the way.
I love that.
And you talk also about serving U.S. citizens first.
And one of the ways that we need to be served right now is energy.
We see fluctuations in prices.
We've also seen the green lobby pushing EVs, electric vehicles, cars.
And someone like Gavin Newsom puts these artificial percent by this date, percent by this date out there in the future.
And he's not thinking about his own power grid.
The California power grid is taxed right now to get through a hot summer.
And they're arcing and lighting up birds and causing their own wildfires because they don't have the infrastructure.
You have been correctly, in my view, correctly talking about nuclear energy.
I'd like you to elaborate on it.
Yeah.
Because if California meets that they are selling 35% EVs in the next five years, they don't have the grid to plug them all in to charge them so people can get to work the next morning.
But nuclear energy offers that.
And when people hear nuclear, they fear Chernobyl.
They fear Three Mile Island that know their history books.
But fifth and sixth generation nuclear power is much different.
You've been clear on this, but it didn't come up in the debate.
Can you address that?
I'd like to come in the debate because the other candidates in the stage have no clue what the hell they'd be talking about.
So the Republican establishment wants to protect the voter base from seeing that their pawns are, you know, we're not prepared with those talking points.
I mean, so that's why it's not going to come up in a Republican debate, I don't think.
Maybe now because we're talking about it, then they'll have enough time to cycle it through.
And maybe I hope it'll be good if they include it in the next one.
Your position.
Yeah, I mean, my position is shut down the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Let's start with that.
The NRC has been fundamentally hostile to nuclear energy in the United States of America.
To new nuke, specifically.
To new nuclear power plants.
And think about the result that that yields.
So before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission came into existence, the average time to build a new nuclear power plant in the United States was about five years.
What is the average time in a place like Japan today?
Around four to five years.
France, a little slower, five to eight years.
Guess what it is in the United States now after the existence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
Is anybody take a guess with that?
25 to 40 years.
25 to 40 years, which is a functional way of saying it, which is basically a way of saying, just for the environmental clearances, which is the first step of the process.
So basically, they've said that, hey, we haven't banned the creation of nuclear energy in the United States because the American people wouldn't really vote for that if they're educated on it.
But this reveals the dirty little secret American politics.
The people we elect to run the government are not the ones who actually run the government.
It's the shadow government in the deep states.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nuclear energy isn't banned in the United States, but they believe there should not be another nuclear power plant built in the U.S.
So even though Congress hasn't banned it, they've just used bureaucratic power through the back door to say that we will make sure quietly through the shadow government that there's not a new nuclear power plant built in the United States.
Now, why?
Because of 3 Mile or Chernobyl or concerns about safety.
Now let's double-click on that.
Gen 3 and Gen 4 nuclear reactors are, by a measure, safer, lower risk than Gen 2 nuclear reactors.
And much smaller.
And much smaller and more efficient and productive.
Because of this policy, we're not building the new safer versions of nuclear reactors.
So the only ones that are actually operative in the United States are Gen 2 or earlier.
The only country in the world that has a Gen 4 nuclear reactor, I'll let you guys guess.
Which one do you think it is?
Russia.
China.
Yep.
For civilian nuclear energy.
Because they have no choice.
So in the name of protecting Americans, what are we doing is actually, who would have ever thought, increasing the risk of further harm.
By the way, the FDA does this to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the three-letter agencies.
That's why my objective in there is to get in there and shut them down.
You know, I was thinking about it.
I was having a interesting conversation with somebody in the last few days.
How are you actually going to lay off a million federal employees?
Anyway, to finish answering this question, shut down the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and follow the actual laws we have in this country, allow for the construction of Gen 3, Gen 4 nuclear reactors, and catch up for the most productive form of energy known to mankind, nuclear energy.
And by the way, here's the ultimate irony on this.
The very people who are most opposed to carbon emissions, and I favor more drilling and fracking and everything else, I'm all in for that.
I've been an evangelist for it.
But the people who are the biggest opponents of more fossil fuels also include some of the biggest opponents of nuclear energy, which tells you that that climate agenda actually has nothing to do with the climate and has everything to do with letting China catch up to the U.S. Global equity is what they call it.
The problem with nuclear energy is not that it's not good enough at supplying our energy needs.
It is that it might be too good at allowing the West to continue and the U.S. in particular to remain ahead of China.
And that's what the climate change agenda is really about.
It's about letting China catch up to the U.S., which is why I brought that up in the Biden-Xi Jinping discussions.
This isn't about the climate.
It's about what they call global equity, which is a fancy way of letting China catch up to the U.S. That's why China's burning more coal last year than they ever have, while the U.S. is burning less than we ever have in the name of stopping carbon emissions.
It's why PetroChina's buying up projects that Chevron is dropping.
BlackRock makes Chevron and Exxon do it, but without causing PetroChina to do it.
And that's why the people who are also opposed to those carbon emissions in the U.S. are also against nuclear energy in the U.S. while China is trouncing us when it comes to nuclear energy.
So anyway, how are we going to shut down these agencies?
You know, I've given a speech in D.C. on exactly the legal authority we would use to shut down these agencies and going into the details matters.
But one of the ideas I've been entertaining for how we, because, you know, this is less of a legal point, but more of an operational point, you know, business guy as well.
We're talking about millions of federal employees.
I got to get this job done, not in four years, in the first 18 months, right?
Because that's really what gives you the momentum for the rest of your presidency.
You don't get that right, you're done.
I mean, you're just, you know, you'll be wading through, do some small thing here and there, but driving the big change we want to drive.
I got 18 months, maybe more like six months to get started.
So I think one of the ideas I'm warming up to is I need to lay off at least a million federal bureaucrats in the first year.
I'd like to pace faster than that.
But how are we going to do that at scale?
Everybody has a social security number.
Pick the last digit of your social security number.
If it's an odd number, we're keeping you.
And if it's an even number, you're out.
Just do that on the first day.
Just that simple.
Boom.
50.
I mean, because I'm not saying it's a perfect method, but you got the law of large numbers working in your favor, right?
So you're going to lose some good people yesterday, you're going to lose some bad people, but the law of large numbers work in your favor.
And if you believe there's just too many darn federal bureaucrats, day one, if your social security number is an even number, you're out.
I can almost state with certainty that on week two of that, nothing's going to be different other than having reduced the size of the federal employee base by half.
And my suspicion, what we will find is that's still too many people.
So I'll say, take the first number of your social security number of who's left.
And if it's an odd number, we're keeping you.
And if it's an even number, you're out.
That's a 75% reduction then in the federal employee headcount.
Not a darn thing is going to work less effectively.
It's actually going to work more effectively as a consequence.
That's how you then get to say, okay, this is sizable change.
We can start with zero-based budgeting and going forward, we'll say, what is actually necessary?
I'm not going to start with last year's budget that the administrative state tells us is necessary.
I will start with zero as the baseline.
Ask what's actually necessary.
And that's how we solve the national debt.
That's how we solve the crisis of the deep state and the shadow government.
That's how we restore accountability in government.
It's how we make sure the people who elect to run the government are the ones who actually run the government.
And so I think that is pretty darn close to what my plan is going to be.
People are going to be.
Pretty bold.
How are you going to downsize the federal government?
Last digit of your social security number.
And then the first digit.
I mean, you may lose some guys that are credible guys.
I mean, I understand what you're saying.
But we're going to keep a lot that still are, too.
Totally get it.
I understand what you're saying.
And then if you cut into the muscle patch, you can always see.
Bring him back like Elon Brown back.
Because Elon fired the 50% and he's like, shit, we need that guy.
We need to get him.
Bring him back.
We can always do it.
I'm with you.
That makes sense.
I'm just thinking purely as a...
But Twitter didn't go off the air.
I get it.
I get it.
By the way, it's funny.
Twitter did not.
You're talking, Rob, can you just put this up before we go to the next stories?
We got a few minutes here left.
Nuclear energy just helped Finland slash electric costs by a staggering 75%.
So if the average person just listened to you and they're like, dude, I have no clue what he just said.
I'm going to kick something here.
You what?
What?
You guys still hear me?
No, we're still on.
Okay, good.
So if the average person is watching this and I'm not following this whole nuclear energy, we've done a few episodes on this.
So why doesn't the U.S. follow suit?
It's got the three reasons below.
One is fear, one is cost, one is time.
75% of electric cost.
The average person listens to that and says, man, I'd love that, especially now that insurance costs are going up in certain places.
This can help me get some more discretionary income.
But let's go to the next topic.
Next topic.
So Tucker Carlson, Trump, yesterday, about six months ago, could have been six months ago when Tucker went to Elon.
This was probably in May.
Yeah, exactly six months ago.
I said, I think there's an alliance being built between Trump, Tucker, and Elon.
That's what I said.
My brother said, what are you talking about?
I said, well, Tucker chose a retweet by Elon over going anywhere else.
And I think it was a good move because Elon's got 160 million followers.
Boom.
That's a great place to be.
And then he aligned himself with Trump.
You know, right before the debate, they're going out with the video, got a few hundred million views on Twitter.
And then yesterday, Trump's being asked about Tucker.
What do you think about a VP option?
Trump said, seriously considering Tucker Carlson for VP, okay, as a VP.
I don't know if you saw that.
I did not see that.
That's very interesting.
That's fascinating.
That's fascinating to say the least, right?
One, what do you think about it?
Two, have you thought about who would be a possible consideration for you as a VP?
Yeah.
So I think Tucker actually could be very interesting as a choice.
I mean, I think that's a he's one of the smartest individuals I've met when it comes to understanding the soul of our country.
And is despite the establishment media's attempt to paint him as some sort of right-wing caricature, he's not actually a partisan figure at all.
I mean, I think many of his positions defy partisan orthodoxy.
He's an independent thinker, and I think could help rebuild.
I think he has already helped rebuild trust in this country.
And so I've been grateful for the relationship.
I haven't known him for nearly as long as others in the world of media or politics.
I've only gotten to know him in recent years, and particularly in the last two years.
But I think he's a thoughtful individual.
I'd want somebody in that role.
It depends on what you want in the role.
For me, if I'm looking for an advisor and I want it in that role, I think that he's not a bad choice to be able to put in that role and actually be thoughtful about it.
I think that there's a different role you could have for your VP, which is also an executor.
And so there I might be thinking about somebody coming from the private sector.
I mean, Elon Musk is, he's not a natural born citizen born in the United States, but I think he would be an outstanding partner to have to be able to do the thing that I just talked about right here, right?
Which is 75% headcount, odd numbers go or even numbers go, doesn't matter, whichever one.
Cut number one, cut number two.
I mean, he's a guy who's actually done it and understand and has also built things up from scratch.
And I'm an entrepreneur.
He's been, you know, I've been more successful than most.
He's been more successful than all, including me.
And so I would want the rule of thumb for me is, it's how I built my businesses.
It's how I want to run this country.
Who is better than me in each of the domains where I'm going to need it?
Okay.
I want to pick the areas that I'm already the best at and still find who's going to be better than me.
And that's how we're going to have to do this, not just at the level of the VP, but some of the most important positions like the Office of Management and Budget.
It's like the CFO of the federal government.
You want somebody who is deep in their understanding of actually the flow of numbers and the flow of money.
Who's going to run the Office of Personnel Management?
Somebody who is going to be unsparing in their assessment of who's actually doing a good job and who's not.
It's like the HR department of the federal government.
And so for me, it's going to be who's going to be better than me in each of those positions.
Would you choose, let's just say, because let's go there.
Yeah.
We had a conversation maybe even yesterday.
So, okay, you know how Super Tuesday, hey, you know, Biden's number four in New Hampshire or whatever, number three.
Kirk and I are talking about this in Vegas.
And then all of a sudden, Warren drops out, Budich drops out.
Everybody drops, we're all getting behind Biden.
Wait, what?
He was losing.
What do you mean you guys are getting behind Biden?
Well, you know, the establishment, maybe Obama called the shots behind closed doors.
Budichik's going to get this job.
This guy's going to do this.
Warren, you got to do this.
Boom.
Everybody, get in line.
Boom.
We're getting in line.
And they're very unified, right?
It's not the case with the Republican Party right now.
And you just call that the establishment, which means let's say the day comes.
Let's play two scenarios.
One scenario is Trump is not running.
Okay.
One scenario is Trump drops out, which it's not going to happen, but let's just say he does.
If it does, that he is not running.
He had a massive event right before the debate down the street, a couple miles down the street.
If he's not running, Mac is not going to go behind Haley.
Mac is not going to go behind any of those guys.
Okay, let's combine them together.
Say Haley picks up Christie.
Let's just say if Haley picks up Christie, he picks up Tim Scott.
Maybe they all go behind Haley or maybe they go behind DeSantis.
Okay.
MAGA has a choice on who to go behind.
Who do they go behind?
Are they going to go behind you?
Yeah.
Is there going to be a split between you and DeSantis?
No, no, I mean, forget, I mean, DeSantis is not part of the America First movement at all.
I mean, I think that he's described him to put himself out as a different type of establishment politician.
What percentage of people are going to be able to do that?
There's two American Finance goes behind you, though.
What percentage of MAGA goes?
You think 80% of the people are going to be able to do that?
Look, I think that it's a matter of earning the support of our base.
And the MAGA base and the America First Base will choose the next president.
I'd like it to be over 90%.
And I think that, you know, I think that I'm representing the ideas that the MAGA base represents.
That's the answer.
So the America First Base represents putting the interest of this country first.
I want to take that to the next level.
And so my view is, you know, America First is going to outlive Donald Trump.
I mean, it's going to be, it's going to be defined.
Nice.
Well done.
I like that.
Go for it.
I like that.
That's watching products get helped out.
Go ahead.
I like that.
You got the agility.
It's Miyagi, son.
Yeah, I might need you.
I think about catching bureaucrats in the federal government.
I want people who are better than me, right?
That's so well done.
That's good.
No, this is, I want people better than me is what I said.
For those of you that didn't see, Pat just caught a fly.
He's not just a fan.
It was a mosquito.
It was a mosquito.
Go ahead.
You were saying.
Yeah, all I'm saying is there's two America First candidates in this race.
The America First movement will outlive Donald Trump into the decades yet to come.
Okay, so my view is that it's going to require leaders who understand what that's all about, who are outsiders, who have the capability to actually execute that and translate that to action.
I think it helps to have fresh legs and be from a different generation.
So in this race, there's only one person who fits that description.
There's one America First candidate on that debate stage two nights ago.
Okay.
That's amazing.
Thank you.
I mean, that was dead obvious to anybody who watched it.
And I think I would expect and hope to earn the support of that base to lead this movement forward to the next level.
What I loved seeing when every debate happened, first one, when they- Let me just say something right now.
That's not just in that scenario, right?
That's right now.
I want to earn the support of that base in the next several months before the heat of the primary voting season begins.
The America First base.
I got you.
Absolutely.
Because as I said before, America First does not belong to one man.
It does not belong to Trump.
It doesn't belong to me.
It didn't belong to Reagan.
Sure.
It belongs to the people of this country.
And so you're asking about that scenario.
I'm asking about, I'm saying the whole race.
Nobody is going to become this nominee without the full support of the America First movement behind us, whoever that nominee is going to be.
There's only two people in this race that I think are eligible to do it.
That's Donald Trump.
I don't disagree.
But let me go a little deeper.
So first debate, I was there in Milwaukee.
During the break, nobody would come talk to you, right?
You're kind of like, who is this guy?
Well, you don't belong up here.
Why is this guy here?
He's going to be done anyways.
I don't know how he made it.
Second debate, you kind of tried to at Reagan, try to be like, hey, let's bring the party together.
And they're like, no, they're not going to do that.
They backfired and attacked you, right?
And then third debates, you're like, no, here's what we're doing.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
But in the first two breaks, you guys got three and a half minutes, right?
So you got three and a half minutes.
Go do what you're doing.
And you, for first two breaks, you talked to DeSantis for 90 seconds.
Oh, you were watching that.
Oh, wow.
You know more than I do.
He was standing next to me.
Yeah.
But you went to win, which is kind of, by the way, that's a sign of somebody that's willing to talk.
So you guys are hashing it out and then you're able to go talk to him.
What was that excuse?
He was hashing up some disagreements.
Okay, so that's what you're talking about.
We were continuing some of the, you know, I told him I disagreed with the law that he passed in Florida on the stage.
Yeah.
And what did he say to you?
He said, well, I mean, he was giving his, he was giving his, yeah, I mean, he was giving his argument back, but I already, I mean, I already knew what that was.
You seem offended, though.
It sounded like that's having a civil conversation.
At a certain point, we walked away.
Yeah, which law in Florida?
The abortion law?
The SKP law.
So disbanding students.
China?
Disbanding.
No, Disbanding student groups.
The Palestinian, the whole thing.
He talked about it on the stage.
Yeah, yeah.
We talked about it in the state.
I just think that if you go the direction of the government deciding what speech does and doesn't go, pretty soon they're going to say, if you question a vaccine, you're a bioterrorist.
If you, you know, say J6 peaceful protesters shouldn't be in prison, you're an insurrectionist terrorist.
That's where this is going to go and this road never ends well.
Slippery slope.
The question I was asking is DeSantis a possible, like, would you consider him as a VP if MAGA goes behind you?
Because you've said a couple things favorable that I think you're being strategic here.
So, no, I mean, I need to drill.
To tell you the truth, I need to understand what his capabilities would be.
And he wouldn't be the advisor type, right?
Tucker Carlson would be the advisor type.
He would have done those.
He would be a guy.
Can he be the guy?
Elon would be higher on my list, but Elon is ineligible constitutionally to do it.
But DeSantis, could he be the guy who gets in there and guts the bureaucracy, that 75% headcount reduction?
Can he see that through and use the skill sets that he's gained as governor, knowing the executive branch of the government to do it?
That would be the question I'd want to get comfort with.
And if so, I think he could be an interesting candidate.
So here's what's crazy.
Somebody could watch this and they could say, what an insult.
Who the hell are you to think you get to choose DeSantis as your VP?
He gets to choose if you can, you know, this whole ego thing that, but let me just make my point here where I'm going with this.
Look, I think in the next three to six months, I think 2024 is going to be the year of chaos.
I call 2023 the year of investigation.
I think 2024 is going to be the most chaotic year of our lifetime, okay?
Our lifetime.
I don't know if we can say our because we have some people that are older than us at this table, but I'm going to say our lifetime here, Tom.
We're not talking about Tom has more wisdom.
Thank you very much.
Respect.
Yeah.
So here's kind of where I'm going with this.
There's a few guys that are saying, okay, one, you know, what are they going to do?
What they're trying to do right now with Article 3, you know, of him being insurrection, they're trying to get rid of the fact that he can't even run and silence them and all this.
Okay, so that's one.
Okay.
The 91 felonies set them aside, but the one thing they can do, that's why these guys were brilliant to say, no, call it an insurrection.
This is our way to get him to never come back and mess with us.
We don't have to worry about that guy.
Let's just say he's out.
If he's out, we could wake up one morning and you're at 6.3%.
We could wake up the next morning and you're at 49%.
And it could be like this.
It could go, right?
But the part I want to go right now is, as of today.
And I think, and I just want to be on clarity on this.
I think that would be sad for the country if this is the way they play out is try to eliminate this man.
That's why I've been against chaos is chaos.
But at the same time, you have to, as a you got to be prepared for all scenarios.
Okay.
Absolutely.
So two is wild card black swan event.
They do something to the man.
He's not one that's not in the public.
He's always out there talking.
You saw what a few people have said as a possibility of what could happen to him.
Okay.
They take him out.
I mean, the level of temperature in the U.S. is going to go to a whole different level.
We're hoping that doesn't happen at all.
Hasn't happened since Reagan, and we're hoping that doesn't happen.
Three, which is the most likely thing that happens.
He is the guy.
Okay.
If he is the guy, it's a different scenario for being a second term president, which is what he would be.
He can only go four years.
So he has to be thinking about a person to bring in to be a VP that's really going to be the next two-term president.
So you're not bringing the person in that's going to be, you know, just a Mike Pence type of guy.
I think it'd be a mistake if he hires a Mike Pence type of personality.
It's going to be somebody that's going to be vocal like a fly carry roll.
You're going around young doing the part.
So a lot of people are thinking Kerry Lake.
A lot of people are, you know, thinking different names and Tucker's down the conversation.
You know, for you, you've said you only have interest in one is what you've said.
You only want to be the guy that's the leader.
But if the opportunity arises and comes to you, that could be 12 years of what you could do.
Let's just say that opportunity comes because you have to know a guy like him, he hasn't taken shots at you yet.
There's not been any shots.
We have a good relationship of mutual respect, actually.
For sure.
And that's felt.
But to me, if that happened, would you actually entertain the idea?
So I'm not a plan B person.
I mean, I'm trying, I'm like, I'm a phase of this campaign.
I just want to answer with total candor, but it's just my brain does not work that way.
I didn't get to where I am in life by having plan A goals and then setting up your bifurcated backup plans on the important things.
Right.
On the unimportant things, yeah, we'll have some plans.
If I don't go to lunch here, we'll go to the other place.
Okay, that doesn't matter.
But the important things in life, when you're guided by your mission and purpose, you set out and you accomplish plan A.
And if you fail, then you figure it out then.
But I'm not a guy who has, you know, I mean, I'm not saying this boastfully, but I've built successful businesses, right?
I built a multi-billion dollar company that got multiple drugs approved through a broken bureaucratic FDA process, challenged BlackRock, built business.
I'm 38 years old.
I'm running for president right now.
My wife didn't get to where she is by successful surgeon, lived her version of the American Dream, one of the best in the world at what she does.
We made this commitment together as a family, an immense sacrifice with one purpose in mind.
It's not even winning the presidency.
That's just a step along the way to reviving this country and our national soul.
That's what we're dedicating the next phase of our life to.
So we didn't do that to pursue a plan B path along the way.
And so I think it would be fake to just sort of say under any scenario, I'm not going to run in 2028, or I'm not going to, you know, if I don't win or whatever.
I just am not going down the track of the market.
You're like an athlete taking a game out of time.
This is what I'm doing.
That's what you're saying.
Exactly.
Okay, fair.
That's what I'm at.
So let's go.
We got 11 minutes left.
I'd like to do two more things before we wrap up.
One, Mansion yesterday gives a speech.
He's not, you know, going to be running to do what he's doing.
But at the same time, he teases third-party presidential run in announcement that he won't seek re-election for Senate.
Okay.
Mansion is a, what state?
West Virginia, Republican state.
This is your guy.
You've always talked about him.
So how many people you think on the left right now are sitting there seeing this as an opportunity, saying, hey, there's a chance for me to come through here with Mansion being one, with Newsom being one.
Are you, are you, because you're boldly telling everybody Biden's not going to be the case?
This guy's not going to do third party.
I just don't think there's a path to Mansion?
Mansion, yeah.
I mean, maybe he will, but I don't think he's going to go anywhere with that.
I think that there's a version of the world where he tries to compete within the Democratic Party.
But Newsom, Michelle Obama, any of these other ambitious governors in the Democratic Party, Budajig, Kamala Harris isn't going to go away lightly.
It's not going to be Biden.
How convinced are you of that?
Because you said that.
I'm very convinced it's not going to be Biden.
I think they're just waiting for the Trump trials to start and then just slip in whoever that alternative is going to be.
Is it a health issue?
Is it the DNC stepping in?
Is it the base basically saying, dude, we are not voting for this guy?
What is it?
It's the establishment and the Democratic Party that will decide the time has come.
And Biden really is a puppet for that establishment.
You don't think he has a say in this at all?
I don't think he has a say in this.
No, I don't think he has one iota of a say in this.
And the proof is, Vivek, the proof is, how many times have we seen on video where he says, I can't, they're telling me I can't.
Who the hell is that?
I mean, the proof is countless, right?
Even without those, that's the part he's not supposed to say out loud.
But yes, there are many instances of seeing the fact that this is not the man who's in charge.
You keep saying Michelle Obama.
Everyone talks about Gavin Newsom.
Everyone's.
I've never seen her give any inkling of her.
I don't think she wants to do it.
The Republican, the Democrat governors that are super ambitious, they're the ones that want to do it.
I doubt she wants to do it, but they will, if necessary, the powers that be will drag her out, just like the powers that be decided that Biden's going to be their puppet until he's not.
I don't think you're having any appetite for this.
Let me throw another one here.
Let me throw another one here.
But you're pretending like that's a factor.
Right?
Just like, just like Biden has some say in what he's doing.
She can say I don't want to do that.
They will say you are doing it.
Let me give you a scenario.
Straight up.
You're doing it.
Let me give you a scenario and walk me through this.
This is one when I'm looking at Kamala Newsome, ideal Newsome for the left.
He's the guy.
I mean, they're proper.
I think that's a likely one.
Okay, so let's play Democratic political strategists.
We're in a room.
Okay, it's me, you and a couple other guys.
And here's what they say.
Vivek, PBD, here's a concern.
I know we want Newsome, but how the hell are we going to do this?
We have to get rid of a black woman that's standing in front of her the VP.
Make her the VP of Newsom.
What if she says no?
I'm not going to say that.
She doesn't have a say in the matter.
Again, she does not have a say in the matter.
Totally get it.
But what if she comes out?
What if she comes out and says you don't think she will?
No, I think that she becomes a back-to-back VP with Newsom.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Interesting.
Yeah.
Interesting.
Yeah.
Because I think that's how they take care of their ideas.
You're very convinced of this.
It's almost like you've seen what's going on behind the Wizard of Oz.
Like you, like when you were here and you did the first interview with us, what was that, six months ago they knew the town hall?
You've almost been enlightened.
You've seen what's going on behind the scene.
Totally.
How convinced are you there's this machine that's going on and they don't have trouble?
I'm 100% convinced that the machine runs the show.
I am offering a prediction that I have reasonable confidence in, but I can't say is 100% certain, right?
Because I don't know what the machine is going to produce.
But whatever is produced, it's going to be the machine.
And there's a machine on both sides of the aisle.
Absolutely.
So is it a fake open primary?
Is it a fake open primary?
How do they mechanically do it?
Well, the way they mechanically do it is aligning all of the donors.
I mean, the mother's milk of politics is money.
This is why they actually, both parties have an incentive to keep the mega money in politics because it prevents the grassroots base from having a real say in deciding who actually runs the show.
Right.
And grassroots only gets to candidates.
The super PACs are held by the big treasure chest, the RNC, DNC.
That's right, exactly.
And so because money's the mother's milk, that's kind of the one lever they hold.
And then the administrative state that actually runs the show, I mean, Biden's not really the president.
It's the shadow government underneath him, have a lot of levers.
And then they use hard power, too.
I mean, you know, that documents case you haven't heard about for Biden for a while, right?
Yeah, not at all.
Yeah, but it's kind of hovering there.
It's not open.
It's not closed.
Interesting how that works.
You got a little bit of some independent council thing going on with Hunter Biden.
Maybe that can go one way or another.
Yeah, but the case is hovering too, right?
So there's the hammer, right?
I mean, if the guy does have a moment of clarity and decide, well, I'm not, that's when the documents case.
Mark, before we wrap up, we got to get it.
And they got the perfect air cover because that's what they, we got it on Trump.
And so it even legitimizes the Trump prosecution because they say, and now we're applying it in a bipartisan manner against Biden.
That's what they're saving it for.
So people got to see, but it's not Republicans and Democrats.
This is the real game, and you got to be able to see it for what it is.
That's what's happening.
Five minutes left.
Okay, guys, if you're watching this, Vivek has two books, Nation of Victims, and he's got one.
And I didn't come here to promote it.
No, he did not.
No, we thought it was a good time.
We love it.
I didn't even know they were going to be.
Both of these books are going to be signed.
There's a question there.
They're actually signed.
Both of these books are signed.
Two of you are going to get it.
There's a question.
There's a link.
You can click on it at the top of the chat.
It's a question.
If you've been following the whole thing, we talked about one thing.
If you get the question right and you're one of the first to do it, we'll send these two copies too.
We'll announce it by the end.
Here's my question for you.
Just for the record, I did not put these books in there.
No, that's not a good question.
No, we put it there.
No, we got it.
No, we put it there.
We put it there.
In fact, I'm taking it.
Here's a question from a user.
It's a good question that's watching.
Fahad Malik.
Question for Vivek.
Legit, glad we had someone who will fight for America first.
What would you say you would do for people under DACA?
You know, most of them have lived here their entire lives, went to school, worked for the U.S. How would you help them out?
These are the dreamers, to be clear.
Yeah.
So this is a hard question.
Okay.
So anybody tells us an easy question is just lying to you and offering a glib response.
I don't blame many of the people who have entered this country illegally under Obama or Biden when you have a president that has effectively given you a wink and a nod and permission to come, particularly Biden.
However, we're a nation-founded.
Oh, his brothers here.
His brothers here.
Oh, we're good.
We're a nation-founded.
The last one was the odd number ending in Social Security.
The first one starts.
Phase two.
But I got phase two coming right here.
So the short answer is, and I think we got to roll.
We're having too much fun, but I think I can feel my phone buzzing, which means they say 11:30.
We're about to walk up.
Yeah, okay, got it.
So anyone who's in this country illegally, if we're thinking on the time scales of history, I think has to be returned to their country of origin against the backdrop of at least for those who have demonstrated themselves to make real contributions to this country and abide by the rule of law, to have a legal and a reformed and sensible legal path to immigration.
If I'm in the White House as a father of two sons, I'd have an awful hard time looking my two sons in the eye and telling them you have to follow the rules if the government that I am leading doesn't follow its own rules.
And so it's with empathy, compassion.
We will be as respectful.
We will never separate families.
We'll take the whole family unit and have a legal path back for anybody who meets the standards of legal immigration.
And one of the ways you could have meet that is to meet the standard of saying that if you've already been a law-abiding citizen and you've demonstrated and made useful contributions and have skills that can continue to contribute to the country in the way that any other legal immigrant would, then there's a legal path back in.
But I think if we're thinking in the time scales of history, the long run, to say we are a nation not founded on ethnicity or on cuisine, we're a nation founded on a set of ideals.
That's what unites us.
And one of those ideals is the rule of law, then we have to stand by those ideals and mean it, not just when it's easy, but when it's hard.
And that's the way I'd lead as commander-in-chief.
And the person who asked that question may not agree with what I had to say, and I respect that, but that's where I would land.
And I would lead nonetheless with compassion and dignity for every person involved and make sure that we handle it after we've done the first step, which is making sure that you're in this country illegally, you can't be here.
Got to respect the fact that you're being honest.
Here's the winners.
Jason, Nolasco, you get one of the copies.
Brandon, if you want to send me the other one, or Rob, we'll give the announcement here as well.
Aside from that, it's a pleasure having you on, as usual.
RFK, if you're watching this, I'll message you afterwards to see if you're open to the idea or not.
If those of you guys want to see him in RFK, cut that clip, put it on Twitter, tag RFK, tag Vivek.
I'm sure Vivek, his camp's going to be seeing that as well.
And maybe we can make that.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know how I force this, but if people have asked me to do that.
It'd be a great conversation between the two of you.
And I think we could.
Davi Jenkins is the other winner that we have for the book.
