All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 1, 2023 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
49:29
EPISODE 552: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH VIVEK RAMASWAMY

Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Support the Show.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the Pozo Daily Brief.
It is completely free.
It'll be one email that's sent to you every day.
You can stop the endless scrolling, trying to find out what's going on in your world.
We will have this delivered directly to you, totally for free.
Go to humanevents.com slash Pozo.
Sign up today.
It's called the Pozo Daily Brief.
Read what I read for show prep.
You will not regret it.
humanevents.com slash Pozo.
Totally free.
the Pozo Daily Brief.
We are in a fifth generational conflict.
For every lie they tell, we're gonna get in their face and yell two truths.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
Deliver us from evil!
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events with Jack Pasoek, live Washington, D.C.
We're excited to welcome back to the show, fresh off the heels of a fiery debate performance with the other Republican candidates.
It's Mr. Vivek Ramaswamy.
Vivek, thank you so much for joining us today.
By the way, for those who wanted to catch me on that, it's September 1st, 2023.
Anno Domini.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Good to see you, Jack.
So let's get right into it.
The biggest one, the biggest question, so I threw out on Twitter, Telegram, a few other areas, I said, what question do you want me to ask him?
You know, we talked Soros last time.
We talked some of, you know, vaccine mandates, immigration.
They're throwing out to me this thing about an Alzheimer's drug.
They're saying this guy got rich with a pump and dump scheme involving an Alzheimer's drug.
There's TikTok videos that went pretty viral this week.
I'm not going to play the video.
People can go see it.
I saw part of one of them at this point.
And so, loved to hear your response.
It was sort of cringeworthy to watch, but anybody who understands or knows this, Jack, can actually follow the actual facts of this.
They're pretty well documented.
It's very clear.
So I actually did develop a drug for Alzheimer's disease.
It failed.
Like 99% of other Alzheimer's drugs.
I think it's 99.7% of drugs ever tested for Alzheimer's disease have failed.
That's thousands of drugs.
Mine was one of them.
That part's true.
The myth is that I somehow made money on this.
So I'll just explain it to people who are so inclined if they care about these details.
I'm happy to share them.
Roivent was the company I founded.
It developed a number of medicines.
The way I made my money is five medicines that succeeded.
One's a life-saving therapy in kids.
One's for men with prostate cancer.
One's for women with endometriosis and uterine fibroids and a number of other diseases we've developed drugs for.
That's how I made the money.
The drug for Alzheimer's disease that failed, that was a source of significant loss to me.
Now, there was a subsidiary of Roivin called Axavan that was a public company that Roivin holded majority stake in.
I actually did not sell, and Roivin did not sell a single share before that failure.
That's actually remarkable, because we could have.
We could have made money.
But literally did not.
Some would actually go so far as to call that out.
Honorable that we didn't do that.
We took a bet.
We wanted to see it through.
We lost on that one, but won on countless others.
And so one of the things I've learned about this, Jack, is in partisan politics, people will stop at nothing.
I mean, that's not like a interpretation.
Those are just hard facts.
You could trace those back to the numbers in 2017 and all the way back to 2015.
Those are black and white facts, but I've learned in this sport that people will stop at making up nothing.
But my job as a candidate is to explain it.
And you can't handle the heat, you stay out of the kitchen.
So it's my job to explain it, and that's what I've done.
Well, so what would you say then to folks, usually the follow-up I get to that one, the next thing is, well you know what, it seems like this guy, you know, he's a pharma bro, he's out of the pharma industry, what would you say to folks that say, people that are upset about vaccine mandates, people who are upset about being forced to take what they consider an experimental vaccine, they would say this guy seems very close to this industry, how can we really trust his background?
So, most people in Big Pharma hate me, Jack.
I don't know, for people who know my prior career and tracked me, or people who worked in the pharmaceutical industry, most of the CEOs hate me because I've called out a lot of the bluff of Big Pharma's inefficiency, its coordination, the corrupt relationship with the FDA, which I've said that I will actually gut as the next president.
My relationship with Big Pharma, think about it as the relationship between Rumble and Big Tech.
And I say this as somebody who was actually one of the early private investors in Rumble, because I like businesses that challenge corrupt orthodoxies, as Rumble I think has done a great job in, and so that's why I backed them early on.
It's also why I started Royven, to challenge what I saw as a corrupt pharmaceutical industrial complex.
That the part that I challenged was they systematically decided not to develop certain kinds of medicines.
Because the thing about pharma is it's all about groupthink.
If you take a risk and you fail, but you're the only one who did it, you might lose your job.
But if you're taking the same risk that everybody else did and create a disaster, it's okay because you're hiding behind the crowd because everybody else did the same thing.
So where am I on the policy questions?
Dead set against vaccine mandates.
Dead set against mandates of any kind.
I'm an absolutist on medical choice.
That means definitely saying no to vaccines and mandates or any mandate of something that has been approved.
But Jack, I also go one step further.
I'm an absolutist on right to try.
I think it is corrupt that the FDA says that, you know what, a patient who's dying from a disease doesn't have the ability to make a medical choice and say that even though that's not approved, I still have the right to try it.
That doesn't exist today.
And the corruption really is the same FDA that says it takes over 10 years to develop a new medicine before you even have the right to try it, is the same one that said you have to take a vaccine that they pushed through in less than nine months.
So I'm on medical choice on both sides.
I'm the only one talking about the right to try issue because it's personal to me.
I've understood this because I've faced off against that bureaucracy.
But that's where I stand.
I also understand the corruption in a way that I can take it on.
Give you one pin on that.
We're coming on.
We're coming up on a break here.
That's special liability protection for vaccine manufacturers.
Strip it and I'm done with it.
That's the way.
I'll be right back.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of the best ways that you can support us here at Human Events and the work that we do is subscribing to us on our Rumble channel.
Make sure you're subscribed, you hit the notifications, so you'll never miss a clip, you'll never miss a new live episode, and we're putting them out every single day of the week.
In the hood, I rolled with Bloods, and them boys had a saying.
You can't be listening to all that slappy whack.
Trim out his all, it's a bam ship.
Nippy, bam, bam.
Alright, Jack Posobiec back here live.
We got cut off, our guest Vivek Ramaswamy got cut off a little bit in the last segment there.
Don't worry folks, he's still here, and we're going to give him a chance to finish it.
So Vivek, we were asking, and you were basically finishing up a question regarding the right to try.
Explain that, by the way, for people who don't understand what right to try is, and then we'll give you a chance to finish your statement.
Right, so I understand this deeply because I've developed drugs that had to go through the FDA process that is far more cumbersome than it should be.
We should have been able to develop those drugs more quickly.
It helps Big Pharma when the regulations increase the burden because that allows them to insulate themselves from competition.
So here's my point.
If you're suffering from a disease, I think you should have the right to try a medicine, even if it hasn't made it all the way through the FDA approval process.
And many companies might say that, hey, they can make that available too.
The FDA hates it and they don't let you do it.
Functionally, they stop you from doing that.
I think that's wrong.
I'm a medical choice absolutist.
But the irony is the same FDA that says you can't try a medicine that hasn't been through 10 years of testing is also the same federal government and FDA that shepherds in a vaccine for COVID in less than nine months and says you have no choice but not to take it.
Think about that hypocrisy.
It makes no sense.
And so, Jack, I understand the corruption deeply.
It's not just coming from a place of looking at this as an outsider.
I understand how it works from within.
That's why I've said I'm going to lay off over 75% of the staff at the FDA.
Gut the corruption.
And I also think that we need to remove that special shield of liability that manufacturers of vaccines enjoy that stop them from being sued for product liability.
That's crony capitalism.
I understand this.
I'm going to put an end to it.
But I do think it helps to have a president who actually gets the details.
Well, thank you and I appreciate your candid answer.
I wanted to shift gears a little bit because there was a tweet you threw up a couple of days ago at this point regarding Taiwan.
And it was about strategic ambiguity versus strategic clarity.
So my backgrounds in China, Mandarin speaker, lived there for a number of years, traveled extensively.
And so this policy that we currently have of the one China policy where the United States rather than say which China it is, the People's Republic or the Republic of China, which is Taiwan, has always been this sort of protection for our relationship and our continued military arms sales to the island of Taiwan while we don't declare itself to be a republic.
And I'd love to throw out there, and I've heard your statement on that we need to be clear about defending Taiwan while we basically rely on them for semiconductors.
But what if there were a situation, so Taiwan's got an election coming up, as I think everyone knows and I know you're well acquainted with, that we have a presidential election next year.
Taiwan actually has a presidential election first.
Theirs comes up in January 2024, and the leading candidate is a guy by the name of William Lai, Lai Ching-de.
And he has said publicly recently, he's the current vice president, he's been publicly saying things recently that he doesn't support an independence declaration.
However, in the past, he has said that he does.
And the People's Republic, CCP, has said they would view that as an act of war.
This is something that a prior Taiwanese president, Chen Shui-bian, had stated.
What if there were a scenario, and I know it's kind of a what-if question, but you know, you've been open to those.
Let's say, what if Taiwan were to basically provoke a situation where the CCP responds militarily?
What would America's role be in that situation, given your formulation of strategic clarity?
So I think that would be a failure on Taiwan's part, and part of our job in supporting Taiwan until we have semiconductor independence is to make sure that Taiwan doesn't do something stupid to provoke World War III in the meantime.
And Jack, I just want to explain the context of this.
I think you understand it.
The neocons have been coming at me like a ton of bricks after the debate stage when I said that I would not provoke or engage in the Ukraine conflict any further.
I think that's a disaster.
I was the only person on that stage with the courage to say it, that we need to get out.
Now, as it relates to Taiwan, I think that part of how we deter China from going after Taiwan is get Russia out of the relationship with China.
So my plan for ending the Ukraine war helps deter China from going after Taiwan because the terms I'll require for making a hard commitment to Putin that NATO won't admit Ukraine to NATO is also saying that Putin can't be in bed with Xi Jinping in that military relationship.
So against that backdrop, I've offered the clearest plan of how we deter Chinese aggression while avoiding World War III over it, or even war and military conflict over Taiwan.
Taiwan is different than Ukraine, though, because right now, and this is pathetic, Jack, that we ever got here as a country, but we depend on them for those little microchips, those semiconductors that power our modern way of life.
If China's squatting on that, they have an economic gun to our head, and I don't want to see us get there.
So what I've said is in the near term, we need to be clear, have strategic clarity that we will defend Taiwan, that Russia is no longer in China's camp, get India militarily and get their naval capacity stepping up in the Andaman Sea, all to make sure that China would have to be a fool to provoke or invade Taiwan before 2028, by the end of my first term, when we'd have semiconductor independence.
And then after that, what I've said is we would resume our current position of strategic ambiguity.
Yes, I know that takes a long time to explain because this is a complicated situation, but I'm a realist.
I'm not just a neocon that wants to march our way into wars and puff our chests because it makes us feel better about ourselves.
No.
It has to directly relate to American interests.
And the direct American interest we have at stake in Taiwan that we don't have in Ukraine is that we depend on our modern way of life because of semiconductors that come from there.
I'm going to onshore much of that.
I want to build better relationships with Japan and South Korea to help fix that problem.
But in the meantime, that's how we have to deter China from going after Taiwan while avoiding war.
And part of our support for Taiwan is making sure that Taiwan doesn't do something stupid in that meantime either.
And that's why I think I'm going to be the president who keeps us out of World War III while actually advancing American interests.
And that was different than every other candidate on that stage.
And it's why they're coming at me with arrows from 360 degrees, as you've probably seen, in the weeks since then.
Well, quite a bit.
You've seen people like Nikki Haley as well really coming at you regarding your Israel comments, saying that you're not going to stand up to Iran, etc.
What is it with candidates like Nikki Haley?
Why do you suppose that this is a question that really animates her?
She was on the stage as well, by the way, not just after the debate.
But you'd never really hear her talking about the American people that way.
Yeah, and the funny part is I love Israel.
I actually love their border policies.
I would love Israel's border policies in this country.
I would love Israel's tough-on-crime policies in this country.
They have a strong national identity in a way that we don't right now in this country.
I would love a missile defense system like Israel has.
So I consider them a friend.
I want to learn from our friends in Israel.
I've also been clear, Jack, and it's really kind of funny to see the back and forth with Pence, Christie, Haley, Karl Rove all coming after me this week, where I've said that we do not want Iran to become nuclear armed, ever, and that we will engage militarily if necessary to make sure that doesn't happen, but I don't want to see our sons and daughters die, our troops on the ground, in another Middle Eastern conflict that's a no-win war.
And you know what?
That's what many pro-Israel advocates have said for a long time, is they don't expect the U.S.
soldiers to die in that war.
Pence, Christie, Haley, all coming after me for that comment.
I challenge them to say, how many Americans of our sons and daughters do you want to send to die in another no-win war in the Middle East?
Be honest with the American people.
Tell them how many are willing to die.
How many are you willing to send to die?
Silence in response.
And that's where we are in the GOP.
That's why I think this debate was really productive.
I think the next one will be, too.
Let's smoke out this division in the GOP.
That's why I'm not a party man.
Every other person in that stage... There was another candidate on stage, by the way, Jack, who was wearing the pin of another country on stage.
Not just an American flag, but a pin of another country on stage in a U.S.
presidential debate.
That's shameful for where we are as a nation right now.
We need to stand for the interests of the United States of America.
That's why I am pro-Israel, because it's pro-American.
But I'm also very clear about that as the basis.
And that's made a lot of other people mad, but that's what distinguishes me from the rest of this field.
And I'm going to stay on it, Jack, and not apologize for foreign policy that puts the interests of the homeland, the citizens of this country, first.
By the way, a national defense policy that hasn't defended the homeland.
We're vulnerable for cyber, super EMP, nuclear missile attacks, even other forms of just border invasion at our own southern border.
That's what I'm going to prioritize as the next Commander-in-Chief, and that's different from everybody else on the stage.
When you look at the field, you know, I notice that people tend to ask you about policy a lot more than the actual race itself, but coming out of the debate, how do you guys feel about your position?
Where do you think the chips fell from there?
Look, I think that this is going to be quickly, I hope, in the coming months, a two-horse race between two America First candidates who respect each other.
That's Donald Trump and myself.
I think everybody else is really parroting slogans that they memorized in 1980, handed to them by their Super PACs in a binder, and really reading them as effectively just vehicles, vessels, for what the Super PAC puppet masters want them to say.
I trust our base to be smart enough to sort that out.
And then I think we could have an earnest decision about how we take our America First agenda to the next level.
The number of people who had a conniption because I said it on stage last week that Donald Trump was the best president we've had in the 21st century.
It's amazing that that sent people into tailspin saying that, oh, are you a Trump proxy running?
Do you have some sort of, it's the new collusion hoax they're making up now.
It's like the Russia collusion hoax last time.
The fact is, that should be the easiest solution.
George Bush and Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
Of course, Donald Trump was a better president.
But I think it's going to be two horses, America first candidates, and then we're able to take our agenda to the next level.
Well, if you remember, these are the same people, by the way, and I actually pushed back on that when they said that you are a Trump plant, because it's actually the same people.
That's a conspiracy theory all the way back from 2015 when Trump ran, because, I know you'll remember this, that when Trump first ran, he was allegedly a Hillary Clinton plant.
So that actually means that you are working for Trump, and through that, of Trump being a plant, you are also actually working for Hillary Clinton.
Isn't that true, Vivek Ramaswamy?
Answer yes or no.
You know, I plead the fifth on that one.
That's, I guess, what we'll have to say.
And the fact of the matter is, all media lies.
I'm glad that people are staying skeptical.
They should be.
But the question is, how do we take our America First agenda forward?
Because we don't have 20 years left as a country.
We don't have time to mess around with the nonsense.
I think it comes down to me and Trump, two good candidates, and I think that'll be the choice that the people face before long.
We're coming up on another break.
Can I hold you for a little bit more?
Can I get you a little bit in the next segment?
Let's do it.
All right, let's do it.
Vick Ramaswamy, he's given us some extra time.
We really appreciate it, folks, because this is what it takes.
You got to answer the hard questions if you want to make it to the big show.
Stay tuned.
Human events.
We're not afraid to ask the questions to the candidates.
And by the way, it's open to anyone who wants to come on, any candidate who's running, either party.
You're more than welcome to come on, give you the same dream.
Jack Posovic.
Where's Jack?
Jack.
He's got a great job.
All right, Jack Posovic back here at Live Human Events.
We're doing a whirlwind interview with Vivek Ramaswamy coming in that a lot of people said he was the top choice of people to say they won the debate, so congratulations on your debate performance.
We also talked about Nikki Haley, some others, but one question that I don't hear brought up with you a lot is Uh regarding the ATF and now I've I know you've said you've talked about abolishing a lot of these agencies but when it comes down to it gun control is going to be put forward by the Democrats in in one way shape or form and many Republicans in some cases go along with it.
So the latest that we've heard and this is coming on the backs of the Pistol braces and other bans, bump stock ban.
Now we're being told that the Biden administration is looking at an ATF rule rather than legislation to go after what they claim is the gun show loophole.
What is your stance on that?
I'm against all of these infringements around the edges because I'm a Second Amendment absolutist.
You can check out my speech at the NRA where I went through the history.
And part of the point is when the government is armed, the people need to be able to arm themselves at least to a commensurate capacity, right?
Now it's not muskets anymore that the government still has.
And so I think that the reason we have a Second Amendment, we got to remember, it's not just to go to the shooting range.
It's not just to go hunting or sport shooting or clay shooting.
No.
It's because it's the amendment that puts the teeth into all of the other ones.
Iran, China, they offer the same freedoms that we do in our Bill of Rights.
The one thing they don't have is a Second Amendment.
And so I think we have to remember that in the present moment.
Do I want gun violence in this country?
No, I don't.
But the reason for that is we have a mental health epidemic.
And so Jack, I think the conversation we need to have, the harder politically incorrect conversation is, instead of removing guns from law-abiding citizens or restraining law-abiding citizens from being able to use their guns in lawful ways, we should be focused on removing psychiatrically ill, dangerous people from their communities.
Have a conversation about involuntary commitment again in this country, not just loading people up with pharmaceuticals.
But even faith-based approaches and other approaches that we can actually bring back psychiatric institutions, non-pharmaceutical psychiatric care, that addresses the mental health epidemic in this country, that removes violent, psychiatrically ill people from the cities and streets, I think that that's a long overdue conversation, because it's the same period that we saw the shuttering of that type of mental health institution that we've seen the recent spike in violent crime.
That's the right way to address violent crime, not to do this virtue-signaling nonsense that you can see from Republicans.
Like in Tennessee, the guy won't release the Nashville Transgender Shooter Manifesto, but has the gall to call a special session to restrain the rights of law-abiding citizens using their own guns.
That's wrong.
I don't care if it's the Republicans or Democrats.
Frankly, it exists in both parties.
And that's why I'm an absolutist for the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
By the way, it occurs to me, one of the questions that we got in, and thank you on this, was at the debate, there was a moment when people were talking about January 6th, people were talking about the Trump indictments, Trump's mugshot comes out a couple days after the debate, but there was a moment when the individual next to you, Governor DeSantis, was asked, and this was one of those raise the hand questions, about pardoning him.
Your hand shot right up.
He looked around side to side, later tried to walk it back, saying, oh, well, I thought we weren't going to do the raise the hand questions.
What was going through your mind at that moment when you realized he was looking around?
I just chuckled to myself.
I don't know if I showed that visibly or not, because that's what's been happening this whole race, right?
You have a lot of establishment politicians that look to me for permission to say the things that I'm saying.
Once I've said them, then they can be a fast follower.
Sometimes I say things and then the Super PAC puppet masters will come on me like a ton of bricks, and the other candidates will say, oh, no, no, no, we can't say that thing that Vivek said.
But sometimes I'll say something and they realize I didn't get punished by the establishment for that as much, and then they'll realize that they can tiptoe behind me.
That's what's been happening in this entire race for the last few months.
We saw a snippet of that in visual form on the debate stage.
But Jack, I could care less about bashing the other candidates.
It's almost a waste of time.
I think most of them are irrelevant, will soon be irrelevant in the presidential race.
I think some of them are good people.
Look, I think Governor DeSantis is an excellent governor.
I like some of what he said about the border policy.
I respect many of these other people to do narrow things we're going to need them to do in our national revival.
But when it comes to the next president of the United States, you need somebody who's bold, who's fearless, who will actually stand for the principles of this country, not incremental reform.
I stand for revolution.
And I think that's the choice we face in this primary.
I stand for the American Revolution, reviving those 1776 principles.
And that's a little different than establishment Republicans and why I'm not a party man.
I'm not a party hack.
I don't recite partisan talking points.
The reason I don't even have that much affinity to the traditional Republican Party is they're not that different than Joe Biden or Liz Cheney or anybody else when it comes to some of the most important foreign policy questions of our time.
I'm an independent patriot who speaks the truth and I'm just using the Republican Party as a vehicle, frankly, to be honest about it, to advance a pro-American agenda and so I don't hide that.
If I could follow up on that one.
We saw yesterday a Jan Sixer, a nonviolent Jan Sixer, who was sentenced to 17 years in federal jail, federal prison, for what they claim is a seditious conspiracy.
They're talking about other ones looking at 33 years, 30 plus years.
A grandmother was given a 15 month sentence.
What is your stance on pardoning those?
And I'm not going to do the gotcha thing of ask you about individual cases.
Would those be pardons that you're open to?
So I'll be very clear about this.
Non-violent January 6th defendants will absolutely get a pardon.
And they will get a pardon not on the last day of my presidency.
That's what presidents usually do for pardons.
They don't want to take the heat.
No.
I will take the heat.
Day one, January 20th, 2025, they get that pardon.
And also any protester who had due process rights denied, like Brady rule violations or any other constitutional violations, video footage or whatnot that they didn't have access to.
That's just a due process point.
Regardless of whether you're on the left or the right, you're entitled to due process in this country.
And that's part of a broader list of pardons that I've committed to on day one, Jack.
And that's the kind of president I want to be.
I don't want to do this in the 11th hour as I'm leaving office.
No.
I want to have the spine to face accountability for my actions.
And these are actions that I will stand by on day one.
Let me ask you this way then.
Do you believe that there were people on January 6, not, you know, this question about federal agents, but do you think that there were people that participated in January 6 that were actually part of a seditious conspiracy?
Do you think that charge was applicable in this case?
Do you think it was appropriate to bring such a charge?
So I don't like when prosecutors bring vague charges that they can really turn into whatever they want to mean.
Take what's actually, even you want to talk about an equivalent charge, the documents case against Trump.
What are they really using?
They're using kind of a species of the Sedition Act.
From 1918.
I think that these are wrong.
These are un-American statutes.
If you want to charge a crime, then actually charge the actual crime.
If somebody was violent and somebody hurt somebody else, great.
That's violent crime.
You can charge that.
Feel free to do it.
If somebody actually violated a law and here's what they did and here's the people who were hurt, that's the way we should be prosecuting crime in this country.
But not these creative uses of RICO statutes or whatever to be able to say that, here's the man and then I'm going to give you the crime.
And I think that's what's happening too much of in this country, because if you're Antifa or BLM, they don't come up with these creative legal theories that you invented the halls of legal academia to think about how you could charge somebody.
No.
In fact, there you have plain as day violence that isn't being charged.
So I want to restore one standard of the rule of law, Jack.
I will never be like the other side.
I'm not going to preordain what the results of individual cases are.
I will never be like Biden, never be like what the corrupt DOJ is today.
I will lead it with integrity.
One standard of the rule of law applied equally to all Americans, regardless of skin color, regardless of political belief.
That's what we need to restore in this country.
And the one unique power that a president does have Usually you can't change the past, but there's one exception.
The presidential pardon power.
And in that case, I will use it to correct for past mistakes.
Whether it's peaceful J6 protesters, whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's Julian Assange, whether it's Douglas Mackey, who you may be familiar with, we've gone down and we have a list of day one pardons.
And I'm going to do it on day one to make a statement that I'm not afraid to hide from the criticism that I'll get for doing it.
That's part of how we reunite this country.
And I do care about national unity, Jack.
I do think we're in a cold civil war in this country, cultural civil war, but I don't want it to stay there.
And I think this is where I'm different than some of the other even healthy voices in our movement.
I want to stand for truth, but I want to do it towards reuniting our country.
I do not want a national divorce.
I want a national revival.
That's what guides me.
That's why I'm in this race.
I think we can reach young people, Jack, and bring them along.
I think I'm in the best position in this race to do that.
That's what it's going to take to reunite this country, but it's got to be founded in the rule of law.
Equal justice for every American.
I couldn't agree more, and Douglas Mackey absolutely deserves a pardon.
I know you have to run, but we had a quick question for you, and actually just a remark if you could.
Our producers, can we show the graphic, guys?
Can we pull this up?
All right, so we've found our crack team of researchers have discovered that apparently You and Pete Buttigieg were grown in a lab somewhere together at Harvard, and this is an initial testing phase that was rolled out about 20 years ago.
Can you comment on these claims in any way, sir?
Well, I think Chris Christie also believes that I'm chat GPT, so I think as long as we get the story straight about whether I'm chat GPT or grown in a lab, you know, I'll be able to respond to the claim accurately.
I actually did crisscross with Pete.
He was a senior when I was a freshman, and we're very different people in a lot of different ways, but, you know, I would love for him to get his senses back.
He didn't seem as ridiculous back in college as he's acting today, but the fact of the matter is, you know, we were all created in some lab, but I was probably in the more traditional one.
You know, funny enough, born in this country, a man and a woman.
I don't I guess that's the way that it usually works.
And as it should, I don't usually I don't usually bring this up a lot.
But Buddha judge and I were both Navy Intel officers at the same time.
And I'm I'm pretty sure we attended some of the same conferences, so that's our six degrees of Kevin Bacon with me and you.
Vivek Ramaswamy, thank you very much for taking the time.
I know you got a run for being here with us.
Where can people go to follow you and get more information about the campaign?
Go to Vivek2024.com.
We've also put up a page that debunks a lot of the mythology that's out there, but it also stands for, importantly, the core principles of the campaign.
Vivek2024.com.
All right.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you for your time.
All right, folks.
I've really got to say that of all the things that Vivek brought up on that on that segment right there, the fact that he brought up Douglas Mackey without me even mentioning it, this is a name that you're not hearing from a lot of Republican politicians.
This is the guy who was convicted in a federal crime.
Doesn't mean you have to say you condone everything he's ever said and done.
You know, there's hashtag ban the ADL is trending on Twitter right now.
You want to talk about freedom of speech in this country?
You want to talk about being thrown into jail potentially for something that you post on Twitter?
Then you must push back against what is being done to Douglas Mac.
Doesn't mean you have to say you condone everything he's ever said and done.
No, it means you support the standard of freedom of speech.
We've got Richard Barris coming on next.
We're going to get his take on the interview that we just did with Vivek Ramaswamy.
Stay tuned.
and Human Events continues.
I hear about the boring people at your office.
I'm trying to listen to the new Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
All right, Jack Posobiec back live.
Washington, D.C., Human Events.
We've got Richard Barris, the People's Pundit, joins us now.
Rich, so I know you were watching in the, we didn't have you in the cone of silence during that.
You were able to actually hear and smell and taste and see everything that was going on.
As a matter of fact, we have a very sophisticated system here at Human Events and able to do all that.
It's very sensual.
What is your take on Vivek's, not so much the interview itself, but his candidacy in general?
I mean, I think it's been completely out of left field.
You got a guy who comes in, he hits the notes, bringing up things like Douglas Mackey, bringing up stuff that you just don't hear the other candidates.
Even Trump, to some extent, doesn't go that level of the details all the time.
And, you know, sometimes he does.
What is your sense then, why is it that this guy has been able to do what he's doing, compared to, look, you've got a UN ambassador, you've got governors, you've got a Secretary of State who bowed out.
How has this guy been able to light the poles on fire, and then are you seeing movement since the debate?
Because I actually haven't had you on.
Yeah, you know, it's a lot to unpack there.
I would say this first, you know, with the detail level, and I do this to people on my show, and, you know, Laura has to pull me back up, say, don't take too deep of a dive, you're gonna drown people.
So, you know, I guess some of that is appreciated among some people, and some of it is, like, Trump has a unique ability to connect, like, you know, on surface level, and he touches deep with what he's saying, even though it's on the surface.
You know, but I'm not surprised at this because probably three, four months ago, I said, he's running a campaign that, you know, a lot of people who wanted to support DeSantis wished he had run and he didn't.
And Vivek also has a very good way of, you know, you just brought up that specific comment.
He's got a great way of knowing what people want to hear and using his own Examples and issues to get them to talk about, you know, what he wants to talk about.
And that's good.
That's called message driving.
He's very good at it.
But I really think this comes down to his strategy was not to make an enemy out of the majority of the damn party.
Like DeSantis and others did.
Nikki Haley, at least though you can say Nikki.
Nikki is Nikki and she's not pretending to be anyone else.
Mike Pence, I don't know what he's doing.
Chris Christie, I don't know what he's doing.
Ron DeSantis was supposed to be the Trump without the Trump, right?
He was supposed to be the Trump without the whatever, you know, baggage.
Well, he's Trump without the Trump voters at this point.
He's Trump without the Trump voter!
That's all he is, because it really became clear to many voters.
It's like, what do you mean?
Trump without the spine?
Like, you know?
I mean, what exactly were you trying to sell there?
And then Vivek had been waiting in the winds, you know?
And is he rising after the debate?
There is no doubt there seems to be some movement for Nikki Haley, too, because I think that some of the never-Trump vote that was with DeSantis kind of bumped on over to her.
The rest of the DeSantis people that left went to Trump and went to Vivek.
In California and in Texas, we have Vivek in second, and DeSantis is in third.
Wow.
Nationally, Vivek would have taken second place in our poll if we would have continued polling for another day, probably.
I really believe that.
What kept DeSantis in the lead is his strength with conservatives and self-identified Republicans and conservatives.
Vivek needs to break into that group more.
Right now, most of his support is coming from the suburbs and more moderate voters and younger voters, which is You know, good for him, I mean, if he's trying to set something up for the future.
So what he's done, essentially, is he's pretty much positioned himself to where DeSantis wanted to be.
He's gone after directly the DeSantis voter.
This was specifically who DeSantis, and all, just as Jeff Rowe, and everyone said, we're gonna win the Suburbs, we're gonna win the Suburbs, what you're saying is this guy's come in and actually scooped it up before he could get there.
Vivek is actually performing better in the suburbs and among moderate Republicans than Ron DeSantis is.
He is.
So, uh, yeah.
And I would say we did do Florida, which I sent to you.
Uh, he is in third in Florida, which doesn't surprise me at all.
Uh, you know, it is DeSantis is still home state.
Trump is absolutely dominating, but, uh, you know, for Vivek to get 7%, And Nikki Haley, you had some movement coming around four.
Yeah, I mean, you can see the map there.
The big change, folks, is the lack of blue now in the Orlando area, the Atlantic Coast region, the lack of blue in the Northeast by Jacksonville.
What is blue there?
What is blue?
Blue is DeSantis.
So what you see... So you're saying, what we're seeing on your chart is that DeSantis is slipping in many of these key areas.
Oh, he has slipped badly.
The panhandle was kind of close last time.
The panhandle in the north central region of Florida was kind of close.
Now he's relegated to Gadsden and Leon, where the Capitol is, which is more obviously, you know, is going to be more liberal of Republicans, but also he has loyalties, you know, as the governor, I imagine that's probably part of what is going on here.
But let me give everybody the top line.
Donald Trump is ahead of DeSantis in his own state, 56.8 to 18.1.
That is up from last month when Trump was leading 52.6 to 32.8 or some ballpark.
So it was, you know, a 20 point lead roughly for Trump.
But now, I mean, Jack, 57 to 18.
I mean, That's huge.
I don't know what even to say at this point.
White voters were the main big shift this month.
Last month, they were roughly the overall, the margin was roughly the same among white voters than it was overall.
This month, white voters went nearly to 60% for Donald Trump, and DeSantis fell to 20, a little over 20.
And then Hispanics, who Trump was always winning, he was winning them about 60-20, he's now winning them 66-9.
So this is a blowout.
I thought it was a blowout last month.
Let's throw out, guys, do we have that trend line we can throw up that you sent us over?
Yeah, the trend would be great.
If we could show the trend, that would be... I mean, look at it.
There it is, boom.
Look at that widening.
This is massive.
Someone else... So what you're saying, what you're seeing on this, and Craig, if I'm wrong, and I'm not even looking at it zoomed in, but this looks as though that's a crater.
That's a crater for DeSantis.
It's a total crater.
It's a total crater.
I mean, Jack, he fell from... That's actually the biggest crater I think I've ever seen in presidential politics.
Yeah.
I'm sure there's some people on, you know, that work at NASA that look at the moon and haven't seen craters this big.
You know, when I was polling it, I said to, uh, you know, I was talking to Sean Parnell.
I said, you know, Neil Armstrong hasn't seen craters that big.
That's right, brother.
That's right.
And I had said as a quib, but it's, it's, it's true.
You know, you have a lot of, uh, DeSantis influencers on social media openly, uh, celebrating Trump's legal troubles now.
And I, I looked at this and I said, Yeah, I don't think I have that specific date.
are going to be, you know, hoping that they charge Donald Trump with murder because he's currently killing Ron DeSantis in his own state.
I mean, this is really bad.
Is there a specific date?
Is there a specific moment that corresponds with that that you found?
Yeah, I don't think I have that specific date.
It was big at the very start of when we entered the field for this month, which was the end of August in June.
And we were still looking at, you know, a solid lead for Donald Trump, but 20 points.
So somewhere between June and late August, this race blew wide open.
And I will say that's interesting, very interesting to me.
Especially in Florida, Ron DeSantis' best interview mode was phone interviews, particularly live or peer-to-peer.
That was, you know, we would overperform there and Trump would underperform, even though Trump was still ahead.
It was always really, you know, much closer than in some of the other modes.
This month, it actually ended with Trump in the 60s and DeSantis at 16.
So with some of the other modes that DeSantis performed better in, that tells me, because who answers these calls, right?
Older voters and voters who have more, you know, are more credentialed.
So once upon a time, he was doing much better with four-year college degrees.
He was doing much better with post-grads in Florida, which- Well, some of those people are actually eager.
They're like eager to be polled.
Oh, they love it, Jack.
They fill your mind.
They love to tell you not only what they think, but why everybody else is wrong.
That's who these people are.
And this time it was just a totally different story.
It was, we have to rally behind Donald Trump.
Anyone else is a submission.
Anyone else is us.
You know, that basically this, you have to remember Florida, Republicans loved Donald Trump more so than nationally, I would say.
I think that's very fair to say.
And they are going to support him, you know, during this time.
And they don't understand.
And DeSantis is, he's not at risk.
He has risked his credibility with not only, you know, his own party across the country.
He's done it in his own state now.
And they just don't understand why, you know, he's allowing this to happen.
They feel his presence in this race.
is making it easier for Trump's enemies to go after him.
We hear it all.
Coming up on a break.
Be right back here.
Final segment.
Richard Barris.
People's fun at breaking down shocking numbers.
I would say shocking numbers out of Florida.
I'm always listening to Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
Alright, Jack Poselbeck back here live with Richard Barras.
Folks, what can I say?
The tie was getting on me.
It had to go during the break.
It's gone.
It's out of here.
But Richard Barras is still here.
You're breaking down for us these Florida numbers.
You also polled Florida as pertains to the general, and you found some interesting answers.
Tell us what you saw in the data.
So we have been studying what we're calling, we coined and others are using it now, which is great.
You know, we're calling it the Trump or bust vote.
These are voters we know very clearly only exist when Donald Trump is on the ballot.
They don't come out for other Republicans.
And we want to know what, because what we have seen is a lot of those are Obama, Trump voters, they're new voters.
But did this really start to cut now into Republicans?
And what this is showing you right here, and this is with Cornel West on the ballot, we did do both.
Basically, when we ask Trump's primary vote, what would you do if he's not the nominee?
You have about 5% who say they won't vote, and then you have another almost 30%, Jack, who say that they would write his name in the ballot.
And we'll test that theory when we ask about DeSantis vs. Biden.
Let me just say about Trump's lead, which is 45%.
Or it's 46, actually, with West in the race.
Let me just say that this is the biggest lead in my entire career I have ever polled in the state of Florida at the presidential level.
Normally, it's very close.
Two, maybe four points.
Rick Scott was the biggest lead when he was running in the Senate.
He had a six-point lead.
I went back and checked.
Nobody polls like this in Florida in our polling for president.
And then you have DeSantis roughly tied.
And what that is from Is that 7% who say they would write in somebody, 95% of them, between 93 and 95, depending on whether West is in or not, are writing in Donald Trump.
And I mean explicitly.
Americans can be very colorful sometimes.
They are making it very clear that they are going to write in Donald Trump.
So the Trump or Bus vote is not only present, but a serious problem for Republicans.
Even in Ron DeSantis' home state, he's a sitting governor and you still have 7% of the vote missing from the electorate because they're not going to vote for him.
They're going to vote for DeSantis and it makes it A statistically even race when you pegged DeSantis against Biden.
By the way, two months ago that was not the case.
Which by the way, what you're tracking, this corresponds to something that Rush Limbaugh used to talk all about during 2008 and 2012.
Nobody ever pulled this before because we didn't really have like a Trump to pull it with.
But I guess you could have pulled it.
That people, conservatives like me, who decided that they didn't want to vote for McCain and they didn't want to vote for Romney.
So they just didn't vote.
That's essentially what you're voting, what you're checking here.
Whether they would write in Trump or not, it's a hypothetical question.
But the real question is, you're actually previewing for us what that role of the conservative who stays home would play if for any reason, because the RNC right now, there's theories and chicanery afoot about a potential contested convention. there's theories and chicanery afoot about a potential contested convention.
And you saw E.S.
Even I believe it was Asa Hutchinson who said up at the debate something about RNC rules preventing Trump from being nominated if he's been convicted of something, which I'm not gonna let go of that because it does not, I do not put it past these people to try to actually pull something like that on the floor.
What you're basically outlining is you do something like that, you're gonna lose the election.
I think too, and I'm not trying to be hyperbolic, You're not just going to lose the election, you stand a very, very likely chance of losing your party.
In 1992, the last time they screwed over voters like this, Ross Perot, Klobuchar, Bush, it would be the end of the Republican Party.
They would be eviscerated and the very next morning on cable news and network news, all you would hear from pundits is, is this the end of the Republican Party?
And the base would be furious and they would make something else.
They would force it out of existence.
I am telling you too, there's another element.
If you have the Republicans that this is absolutely that Rush Limbaugh voter and then there's another element the I voted maybe for Obama in 08 then I didn't vote for Mitt Romney because you know the hell with him and then I voted for Trump I don't vote in 18 I don't vote in 22 I did vote for Trump in 20 and then Jack there's new voters and many of them we highlighted in the press release every single independent Hispanic who said they would write someone in wrote in Donald Trump
Every single one, not one to someone else, to some obscure candidate, not one, every single write-in was for Donald Trump.
If you ignore that, you're an idiot and you deserve to lose your party.
You know, New Hampshire, look at what they tried, they were thinking about pulling.
This is national suicide.
For the Republican Party.
If you beat him, you beat him.
That's different.
And I think the voters are still going to see some degree, stay home if he was to lose fair and square.
But we're at a point now where no one's ever going to view it fair and square.
They see what's happening to him.
All in their minds, a way to rig yet another election against him and another way, yet again, to rig a system, a society against them.
And I'm telling you, this is it.
This is it, Jack.
That being said, you put Trump on the ballot.
Trump gets in there, and we did just see, by the way, a judge down in Florida blocked one of these lawsuits to try to strip Trump from the ballot.
That just happened earlier today.
So, Trump goes on the ballot.
Let's say, let's say Cornel West is on the ballot.
So Trump actually jumps up a point with Cornel West.
He goes from 45 to 46.
who wins the race between Trump, Cornel West, and Joe Biden?
So Trump actually jumps up a point with Cornel West.
He goes from 45 to 46.
And Biden is at 36.8, so he loses a tenth of a percentage point.
It's a little bit weird how that works, but Trump actually gains, but not because of Biden's loss.
And I think it's noteworthy that, you know, you have DeSantis and Biden tied statistically at 38, 37.8 for Biden, 37.5 for DeSantis.
With West, it goes from that to 37.3 up.
So they're both tied there.
We heard from people, whether it was West or without West in the race, I voted for Ron DeSantis even in the midterm.
I supported him, but that was for governor.
This is for president.
It's very different.
I tried explaining to people, gubernatorial elections are not any kind of an indication of how a candidate or a party will fare at the presidential election.
In a specific state, to include Florida.
Bush won re-election overwhelmingly, and yet his own brother narrowly won the state.
I mean, it doesn't work that way.
And people made a very, very terrible mistake.
Rich Barris, where can people go to follow you?
Where can you get all the numbers?
Best place, Jack, is locals, peoplespundit.locals.com.
That'll show when the show's up.
They always get the polling first before it even goes on Big Data Poll.
peoplespundit.locals.com.
▲
Export Selection