Rubin Report - Dave Rubin - Charlie Kirk’s Best Moments on The Rubin Report 2025-09-12 19:04

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 12, 2025 - Rubin Report - Dave Rubin

01:53:53

Charlie Kirk’s Best Moments on The Rubin Report 2025-09-12 19:04

Participants

Main voices

charlie kirk

01:23:55

dave rubin

28:59

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		And I really believe part of the reason why the left has become so radical is they haven't had to debate.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, they got fat because it was so easy to call everyone racist and sit back.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		AOC, Alexandria Kazi-Gortez, has she ever gone on a center-right platform?
		That's a really good question, is it?
		I know of no knowledge of it.
		Ever since that one woman asked her three tough questions about, and she said Palestine was occupying Israel or something, she has done nothing but friendly media.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I would love to sit down with her, and even though I've gone after her on Twitter, obviously, I would treat her, of course, with the same respect.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I know you would, and I would too.
		And I would ask her direct questions, and I would hope she would ask questions out of me.
		And so the one thing I think is really important that I get far too often, the question I get a lot on college campuses, and then we can get into the tech stuff, is that students that are in the middle, they come after this.
		This is the best case scenario at times, but it's not correct, where they say, well, yeah, the left has gone out of control, but the right has also gone really out of control.
		I say to myself, what do you mean?
		There is no moral equivalency between the two.
		Where is right-wing Antifa?
		Where is right-wing?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Well, they'll tell you it's the KKK.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		There's 45 of them, and every time they try to materialize anywhere, it's unilateral, uniform, and overwhelming denouncement of these people.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Just out of control denouncement.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think we should just hit that, though, because if what happened, if what happened a couple weeks ago with ICE, with the attack.
		Or with Andy even, right, with Andy No, who I had on.
		I mean, if either one of those things had come out of the right, whatever that is, whether you're a CNN Sunday night special or not.
		Yeah, they'd be having a town hall where Marco Rubio would be getting strung up.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		And so they virtue signal a lot better than us.
		But what I'm trying to say is, I'm not trying to say we're better people and we deserve all this, but boy, our worldview is better than them right now, 100%.
		Because if you're a member of Congress and you're asked a specific question, will you denounce Antifa?
		Which for all intents and purposes in my mind is a domestic terror organization.
		They're a domestic terror organization.
		They should be treated as such.
		How do you assault a journalist like that with masks, with concrete milkshakes, send him to a hospital, and not be called a domestic terror?
		You have an organization.
		You have a hierarchy.
		you have a common meeting place, I mean, all this stuff that...
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Because they're doing that dirty work.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		But everything the FBI, there's like a checklist that the FBI has of what a terror group is.
		They qualify all of them, domestic terror group.
		I mean, they have specific targets, right?
		All this sort of thing.
		And yet, total silence amongst the left.
		Complete and total silence.
		And I'm rooting.
		I'm rooting for people like Delaney and Andrew Yang, because Andrew Yang denounced it.
		Andrew Yang had the best tweet, and then we'll get to the tech stuff.
		The best tweet.
		He said, and I think it was just kind of this very interesting observation.
		He is an IQ.
		That's amazing.
		He's a really smart guy.
		He's misguided on the UBI thing, but that's okay.
		And he said, I notice conservatives follow a lot more liberals on Twitter than liberals follow conservatives on Twitter.
		Did you see this?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I saw it.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		And I said, he's getting there.
		Give him five more months of this circus.
		He's going to be very, he's going to have a different view of the left than he did a year and a half ago.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I actually, I completely agree.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		And then we're going to get to the disagreements up, but I'm with you on that because he keeps, you know, I had him in here and I think he's a really good idea.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		And your interview with him was fantastic.
unidentified		Thank you.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		It's really good.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Not necessary to say.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		But it's honest.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I think you're basically right because even when I asked him what his progressive politics were, everything he said was about equality.
		You know, I'm for gay marriage or something like that.
		And it's like, but that's not progressive anymore because we've progressed to it.
		We've progressed to equality.
		So in my view, he really is an old school liberal.
		And yes, on some of the big government stuff and whatever you think about UBI, he's not there.
		But I think once he's done with this evil machine, he's going to, in a weird way, he could end up being more right than most liberals.
		I think that probably is where he'll end up.
		Oh, wait, let's.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Okay, fine.
unidentified		All right.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I want to move to the disagreements.
		We've been too nice to each other yesterday.
		You wrote a piece in the Washington Post about big tech a couple weeks ago.
		And everyone that's watching this knows that where I'm at right now is the libertarian side of me that thinks that the market can solve everything, or at least that the market is the best way to solve problems.
		Not that they're always going to be solved, but that's the best way.
		That's being pushed to its limit.
		The rubber is meeting the road.
		I think the tech companies have gotten so out of control with the bannings, with the shadow bannings, with the demonetizations, with algorithms that nobody seems to know how to control or are being manipulated.
		And I could go on and on with a zillion other things.
		Your argument basically was, yeah, I don't want the government doing anything, but here we are.
		That's the but.
		And now the butt, of course, is where that's where the problem starts kicking in if you hold an ideal that markets are supposed to solve these things.
		So I'm not there.
		It's just not there.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		It's a really tough conversation, Dave.
		I'm so glad we're having it because I'm a Milton Friedman guy.
		I'm a free market, free people.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Wait, New York Times had him on the cover.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		He's in an alt-right.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, right.
		You're right.
		That was the most ridiculous piece that I've seen.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		My dad, 40 years, he's had the New York Times.
		I think even longer than I've been born, he had it for like 45 years, still subscribed.
		Nothing like seeing his son's head.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		This was one of the most dishonest pieces of journalism I've ever seen.
		You have one guy.
		Like one guy.
		And it's just this pabl, thousands of words of nonsense.
unidentified		Nonsense.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, that's a different thing at a different time.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I've invited the author on the show.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Milton Friedman.
unidentified		Yeah.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I'm a Milton Friedman guy.
		I'm a Thomas Soule guy.
		I believe markets do solve solutions.
		For those of you that are listening or watching that aren't sure what my view of markets are, it's that free people exchanging goods in a free society, voluntarily, mutually cooperating as they see fit, will benefit society, benefit the individual, and that that's essentially a market.
		So a couple things.
		In order for a market to operate, you also believe in private property.
		That's a big thing.
		So you have impartial courts that can adjudicate differences.
		So you're not an anarchist.
		I'm not an anarchist.
		Adam Smith talked about the importance of impartial courts because you're going to have differences of properties and not just physical property, but intellectual property and all that.
		And also, of course, the price system.
		That's really, really important.
		Milton Friedman talked how prices are the language of how we communicate with each other.
		So if tomorrow, Starbucks made every single cup of coffee $25, which is not inconceivable, considering they're up.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		But you mean they're going to lower the prices?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
		The upward trajectory that they're on for coffee, there's something to be said that less people will buy that coffee.
		And so that's how you communicate.
		No one actually might open, some people might open their voice and be upset, but the silent regression from buying their coffee will be reflected in their balance sheet.
		And that's how we communicate value to value.
		Prices are super important.
		So I think the first thing when we talk about tech is we also have, we have to first admit we really don't have a market in tech.
		There's a couple reasons behind this.
		And then we have to talk about some of the problems that I think everyone admits.
		First of all, there's a lot of cronyism that exists between the big tech companies right now, whether it be government contracts, whether it be far too extended patents that are given to Google.
		We need to think about this.
		I think that patents in a lot of ways are anti-free market.
		And I think we should shrink the window of how long some of these patents are.
		So you said it the best.
		Google has this algorithm that no one can figure out, right?
		But they also have it patented.
		And they have it patented for a very long time.
		And so if it were to be put off the patent market, well, it's also made public.
		And someone could compete against it.
		So that's an interesting thing to think about.
		That they're actually hiding behind some of the government favors that are given to them.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Right, so it's a weird place to be, though, because you're sort of asking for government interference with the hope of this back-end free market.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, so let's go to what we want.
		I always tell our team at Turning Point USA, every time, what does success look like?
		Well, Charlie, success looks like 1,400 high school kids in D.C. in August.
		Great.
		How do we get there?
		We work backwards to where we are today.
		Let's do that.
		Why not?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Take me on this voyage.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		What does success look like?
		Fair, free, and open platforms where different ideas can express themselves.
		Multiple tech companies, not four, but dozens of tech companies competing for our interests that are able to have these ideas present, hopefully an improving product over time, and hopefully a search engine that doesn't have 92% of the market share.
		I don't think that's a healthy thing.
		I just don't.
		I think even 40% would be a lot, 92%.
		So that's where success would look like a disaggregation.
		Let's call it that.
		decentralization.
		I think that's probably a fair you'd agree with that, right?
		And also you not having to battle YouTube non-stop and you not having to do all these things.
		You would actually focus on content creation.
		I have to ask you, Dave, how many hundreds of hours have you spent of wasted energy on this stuff?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Oh, it's been, I mean, I have to fight them publicly constantly.
		It's like it's not you right now.
		Yeah, well, it's not fun.
		It's not that it's a no, well, it's bad business because I'm putting Cal content that I end up losing money on.
		I'm in a weird way.
		There are times where I'm doing the producers.
		The more things that I make, the more money I lose.
unidentified		Yes.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Which is not fun.
		But also, it's just publicly.
		It's not fun to have to attack your own platform.
		But okay, so so far I'm with you on the ideas, but now where we're going to have our problem is.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		So here's the question.
		The functional part.
		The question is, so let's say we deregulate some of the patent stuff and all that, but is it enough?
		And I'm at a place right now where Tucker Carlson says something really interesting to me and really stuck with me.
		He said, Charlie, I want you to think about this.
		Who is more powerful, the IRS or Google?
		And I immediately said the IRS, because that's what we conservatives believe.
		Like, we believe that government has uniform power.
		And I defended it, I thought, pretty well.
		Google doesn't have the power of audits.
		Google can't put you in prison.
		You know, all these IRS can do all those sorts of things, right?
		And the IRS can wreck your business.
		And Tucker retorted with a really interesting thing.
		He said, well, but Google can shut down your business.
		I said, yeah, I guess that's right.
		And I debated a little bit.
		Google can manipulate entire society to believe something that might not be true.
		And we went through the whole litany of how powerful Google was.
		And I thought about it for months.
		And I think that's a really important thing that we conservatives do.
		We actually are always challenging our positions.
		I think that's what's so healthy about our movement.
		And it hit me about a month and a half ago when I was using, I had my laptop open and I had my Gmail account watching YouTube, you know, on my Google Calendar.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		And I said, my goodness, they know everything about me.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		The IRS doesn't know crap.
		The IRS knows a couple bank statements, you know, my taxes and my bank statements.
		That's a very small picture of my actual activity.
		And I thought to myself when I met this computer open, I said, what if one engineer in Google was flipping through Twitter and saw one of my tweets praising President Trump?
		And he said, screw this Charlie Kirk guy.
		And he goes to work tomorrow and he decides to look at everything about me.
		Do we know that's not happening?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I think we can go on the assumption that it is happening.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		That's really scary.
		That's more power than the NSA has.
		And by the way, we know that Google is so slanted in the wrong direction ideologically.
		We know they've shown regret for not doing enough in 2016.
		We know the political imbalance, their political contributions were over a million dollars to Hillary Clinton and $0 to Donald Trump in 2016 as far as political contributions.
		They fired James Damore.
		So here's the question: Is there a place for the federal government to get engaged or involved, tinker around the edges or change or do something to change the way that this is currently happening?
		And the piece I wrote in the Washington Post was first admitting how this could go wrong.
		So let's just, can I start there?
		Is that okay?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		Well, that's why I brought up the piece because I think you did try to at least acknowledge this struggle with this.
		This is the freaking murky road that this thing is.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I'm struggling with this because I'm, free market's so great.
		I believe this.
		I see this beautiful society created by the free market.
		And I say, but what about these companies?
		So I'm struggling.
		And that's a good thing to struggle because then you actually might find reasonability somewhere.
		And so the first piece is, let's see how this could go wrong.
		Okay?
		More times than not, when you apply regulation on a very, very big company, the regulation ends up getting written by those companies.
		The regulation gets lobbied for by those companies.
		There's last-minute, middle-of-the-night changes being put by senators and K-Street law firms and lobbyists that end up actually benefiting the very company that it's supposed to regulate.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		It ends up hurting the competition that's trying to upstart because they can never keep up with the regulations.
		Okay, so now you're so far you're giving me stuff that I'm with.
		I talked about this.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		That's why I opened up with this.
		And so let's talk a very agreeable example.
		It's Dodd-Frank.
		Dodd-Frank, for those of you that don't know that are watching this, was a banking regulation bill passed out of the 2008 financial crisis, authored by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to try to regulate the big banks to try to never allow the 2008 financial crisis to happen again.
		But essentially what it would be is like, okay, I lost my arm in a horrible motorcycle accident and I'm taking Pepto-Bismol for a stomachache.
		It's like complete wrong treatment.
		They had nothing to do with this.
		So they apply the wrong treatment to an ill-advised, poorly analyzed problem.
		And what ended up happening was the big five or six banks, Goldman, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, these massive, massive banks that have trillions and trillions, hundreds of tens of billions, tens of trillions of dollars of assets collectively, they lobby for regulation that they understand, that they can comply with.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Now they're even too big to fail.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		And what has happened?
		You now have Wells Fargo, you have BOA, you have JPMorgan with stock prices that have never been higher, with more power than they've ever had.
		And what did Dodd-Frank do?
		We have seen a massive decrease and decline in community banking.
		Massive.
		Because for the bank, the local bank of Sacramento, let's just take a local bank of Sacramento that might have $250 million in deposits.
		And they might do a couple million, you know, let's say $12 million in revenue.
		They've got some good loans out, healthy balance sheets, all that.
		But all of a sudden, a federal regulator walks in with an encyclopedia of new regulation they have to comply with.
		And they say, well, this is going to cost us $800,000 in law cost.
		Well, sorry, this is the new law.
		Well, $800,000 for JP Morgan is called lunch.
		That's nothing.
		I mean, it's nothing then.
		So what ends up happening is it penalizes it.
		So I'm admitting I'm being vulnerable.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so this is a huge concession on your part.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's part of the piece, right?
		I'm being vulnerable of how I've come to this because I first wanted to tell the audience that I'm not dealing in absolutes here at all.
		I'm dealing in very much of there's context and there's texture to this.
		So anyway, so how regulation could be a weapon used?
		And you saw this with Facebook though.
		You saw this with Facebook, where Facebook actually put forth this proposal of how to protect people's privacy.
		That was like 450,000 pages of garbage.
		It was basically written by Sheryl Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg of how their company can thrive and rule the world.
		Okay, that's stupid.
		So then the question is, how do we get to that success?
		And I think what I wrote in the piece is the number one thing that we can do is change section 602.
		I think that's the number.
		It's a 206 or 602.
		I can be dyslexic at times.
		So I think it's 602 in the technology code that was passed in the 1990s that allows these technology platforms to hide behind the label of being a platform when they're really acting like a publisher.
		So the Rubin report, right, any of these companies, you guys are publishers, right?
		Correct me if I'm wrong.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I'm responsible for the contents.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		So if you look at it and say something horribly libelous about somebody and publish it behind your name, you could be held accountable for that libel suit.
		Now, a platform, right?
		A platform is supposed to be an open forum where no one can be held accountable to it.
		However, where they get around it is where they have these community standards, right?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Right, which is the sneaky way of, oh, we're going to kind of curb out who we don't exactly want in there.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		So trying to break outside of the binary box, since the piece, I've thought of this more and I've gotten some really good feedback on it.
		There can be a third box created too.
		It's like you can have a platform publisher and then social network.
		Because they're definitely acting like a publisher.
		They're pretending to be a platform.
		But why not create a third box and have an internet bill of rights?
		That's an interesting idea.
		I'm not saying that's 100% what I believe, but why not?
		Because when you're consuming so much information online and so many people are, their livelihoods are online and we're gravitating towards online, what's to say that there shouldn't be that kind of third box.
		And so there's a very aggressive community that says regulate these companies, throw the regulators at them.
		It's very tempting to do that because you want to seek vengeance against these companies that are doing these horrible, horrible things.
		But my whole thing right here is that something needs to change governmentally.
		We're at that point.
		What that something is, I'm open-minded to.
		I proposed in the Washington Post piece that got a ton of play.
		Got more mail from that piece, I think, than any other thing I've written.
		The 602 code is the opening.
		That's where I think we have to change it.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		So, okay, so I like the platform versus publisher debate, and I think you're right.
		They are acting now as publishers, not open platforms.
		So I think there's something there.
		I think where I would still be struggling is, okay, so we even, I can get you with you on the Internet Bill of Rights.
		I would love that.
		If you're a, well, publisher, let's say, if you're a platform, as they're pretending to be, you have to abide by that.
		But you have certain things to abide by.
		So that sounds good, right?
		Road to Hell's Paper Good Intentions.
		Now we've got something that sounds good.
		But then to enforce it, what are you going to do?
		What is the government going to do?
		Suddenly you have a gajillion bureaucrats running around these companies making sure that they're doing all of those things.
		And it's like, do the middle management government bureaucrats have any insight into how these companies operate internally?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I can tell you what you do.
		You create a division of the Department of Justice that's focused on internet civil rights.
		It's no different than free expression that was challenged in the 70s and 80s in a lot of different, in the gay community.
		There was huge controversy in the 1980s in California in particular.
		A lot of lawsuits that stemmed out of that.
		And there was a creation eventually in the Department of Justice that focused on, how is it any different, Dave, when you get the kind of penalization that you've gotten on social media, or when Crowder gets demonetized, how is that not a violation of your freedom of expression?
		And someone said, with our private company, okay.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I don't want to force that baker to bake the cake.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Of course, I completely and totally understand that.
		But then you are a publisher.
		You're discriminating.
		The point of being a publisher is you don't have to take everyone's piece.
		That's the whole idea of being a publisher.
		And so the other interesting thing, David, question to challenge you is at what point, what's the breaking point for you?
		Because what if Google shut us all up?
		Shapiro, Crowder, Knowles, Clavin, Dailywire, me, Prager, overnight.
		Would then we say we go after them with government?
		And here's the other question I have to get.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Well, first of all, let me just answer.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		What's stopping them?
unidentified		Right.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		So I've been posing this actually when I, because this is what I've been talking about mostly at colleges lately, and I posed that question.
		If they were to digitally assassinate me today, if they just all of them just agree, Twitter, down, YouTube, down, Facebook, down, and Instagram down, would that be a violation of my civil rights?
		And I think it's as close as you can possibly get to yes.
		They could just take you out of what the new public sphere is.
		And especially the way that technology is evolving so fast, you could almost argue that your ability to be on those platforms in some weird way is almost paramount than your ability to just exist on a day-to-day basis, which is a sort of very Philip K. Dick to think of the type of thing to think about.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		So my question for you, Dave, is, are we there yet?
		And if not, when will we be?
		And then I'm there.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so let's say I see it.
		So Tucker and I have done this several times on his show.
		So let's say I grant you that.
		Then explain this to me.
		Trump happens to be favorable to some of the people that you're mentioning here.
		He's on the right side of this issue, I would say.
		What happens now?
		Trump loses in 2020, you've got President Elizabeth Warren who wants to, it's code 230.
		My guys are telling me, by the way, not 602.
unidentified		See, we fact-check here on the Rubin reports.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		That wasn't even dyslexia.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		That was just a made-up.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it wasn't made up.
		It was mismemory.
		Sorry.
		I got all these numbers.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		You've just lost all credibility for you.
		And I really thought you were doing well this hour.
		No, all right.
		Now we've got President Elizabeth Warren who would be more than happy as a far-left progressive to do everything that she can to have the government take over everything.
		And now you've already handed her this power.
		Now, I think I know your answer is going to be she's going to do it anyway, whether Trump moves on it or not, the left will come for it anyway.
		But that still seems crazily dangerous to me and a terrible pressure.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, it depends on how we structure this in a way.
		And again, I think the challenge is whenever possible, we're going back to the doctrine of Adam Smith.
		So here's the question, Dave.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Private property.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		You have private property rights, don't you?
unidentified		We all do.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		So aren't all your videos you put on YouTube your property?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		and you've monetized them and so under the adam smith doctrine of markets you well technically i don't know if I actually just honestly don't know off the top of my head with whatever crazy thing I've signed with.
unidentified		You can't do it.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		But these are the videos that I put there.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		So that's an interesting question.
		You definitely have the intellectual property.
		All of this production cost, all that, that is yours.
		And you've monetized it.
		And I think, from what I understand, you've gone into a cooperative with YouTube.
		I'm guessing that they have the rights to it once you sign over the rights.
		But isn't there an argument to say, like, but this is my video.
		I've created this.
		Whether that's been adjudicated or not, I'm not sure.
		But I think the solution has to go through the courts.
		And this is me believing the courts have been highly politicized in many, many recent years.
		The long-lasting legacy of Donald Trump will be hopefully the rebalancing the federal judiciary away from slanted radicalism and towards hopefully kind of very restrained, kind of restrained, what's the word, textualism, being more textualist.
		And so that's the question is: so if Elizabeth Warren starts to go on a rampage, hopefully you can be able to sue and you can use the courts to uphold these things.
		And that's under, you know, under Obama, there were decisions that he was not crazy about.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		So your basic belief, if we were to whittle all this down, would be that the three branches of government would still be able to function in a way.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Hopefully.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		That would protect us from the government alone.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Let me go a step further.
		There's four branches of government, and the fourth is called Silicon Valley.
		And they're stronger than the rest of the three of them.
		That's where I'm at.
		Where we have a super government that's been created, where the kingdom of D.C. is no longer the most powerful fiefdom in this Game of Thrones, that the power is in Silicon Valley.
		And this is where Tucker is on this issue.
		This is where Dennis Prager is on this issue.
		I mean, the IRS, to give you the idea, the IRS, they don't even accept emails.
		You have to send a snail letter to them, like a snail mail letter to them.
		Again, they might be morally corrupted, but these guys at Google, I mean, they're literally building new limbs for people.
		I mean, they have driverless cars, highly technological people.
		And so, and Dave, here's my question for you as a libertarian.
		Do you support, looking retrospectively back in history, the trust busting that Teddy Roosevelt did in the 1900s?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Right, so I get it.
		I mean, this is the slippery slope thing always, right?
		There's a libertarian argument that would be against the Civil Rights Act that I think is a disagree with it too, and I'm not for relitigating it, but I think there is a libertarian argument there.
		But this is where I would say, I would say this is the difference between basically a classical liberal and a libertarian.
		I do find some utility for the state.
		So nothing that you're saying to me, nothing you're saying is completely outlandish.
		Sure.
		And I think if anything, for whatever disagreement there is here, in a weird way, we need to keep that disagreement.
		Do you think that's fair to say?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		No, I think that's totally fair.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Because that way it keeps either side from...
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		It keeps an account and not getting too far and not allowing your emotion run...
		And I think to keep it in check, I just, so it's a very interesting conversation because growing in the kind of conservative libertarian world and reading Hayek and reading Rothbard, I've been told my entire life, and I agree with this, up until the last couple months where I've told the true monopoly is government.
		And that's just not true anymore.
		We have companies that could do things the government cannot do.
		And that's never been the case in human history.
		It's just never been the case.
		It just hasn't.
		Where you have a government that can shut off the entire lines of communication for millions of people.
		You have a government that can say, we want everyone to think that Sam's Delhi is closed tomorrow.
		So everyone Googles Sam's Deli.
		Oh, it's closed, even though it's open.
		You have an entire super government that's been created that can manipulate the entire behavioral pattern of a society.
		And so if that actually, if we could admit that's stronger than the government, then do we use government against it?
		And again, I admit it, although how that could go wrong, you could actually end up making those companies more powerful.
		But I want to go back to where I see, where I saw what success looks like.
		And this has to be like the moonshot.
		We're going to get to the moon.
		And this is the advice I gave to President Trump publicly, where I think the president should issue a big challenge saying to the entrepreneurs of America, go start the next tech company.
		I'm going to use your platform.
		I'm going to use as many platforms as I can touch.
		Go do it right now.
		Go raise the capital.
		I believe in you.
		Almost like creating entrepreneurial activity around this.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Well, Kirk, as you know, we're taping this at the end of July right now.
		This is going to air in August because I'm off the grid for August.
		You might be interested in perhaps an announcement that someone might be making at the beginning of September.
		don't want to say too much but that but if you want to ping that trump guy and tell him sure but yes i love all that stuff And I'm not saying any of these things are exclusive.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I'm saying we've identified the problem.
		We understand the significance of it.
		We understand how we could solve it incorrectly.
		Because the first thing you do in medicine is what first do no harm.
		It's the first thing.
		So we have this problem, and we could end up actually making it worse.
		And that would be horrible, wouldn't it?
		Imagine if we passed all this regulation.
		Imagine if we had this crazy bill passed through Congress.
		We felt great about it.
		Then 18 months later, all of a sudden we find out that Google got all these last-minute provisions in.
		It's not being enforced.
		And they're ending up not 92% of search results.
		They have 99% of search results.
		And everyone gets taken off the market.
		And that would be really, that would be defeating.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		The road to hell, man.
		All right, listen, we have to wrap unfortunately.
		Obviously, we're going to do this again.
		And, you know, look, if we ended up getting booted from the platforms, I guess we'll just have to keep doing this in person until.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		We could text this video to people or something.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		They'll take us down.
		Thank you, Charlie.
		For more on Charlie, follow him at Charlie Kirk11.
		And don't forget to click that subscribe button and make sure the bell is solid to get all the notifications for our videos.
		Thanks for watching, everybody.
		I'm Dave Rubin, and joining me today is the host of The Charlie Kirk Show, the founder of Turning Point USA, and the author of The MAGA Doctrine, The Only Ideas That Will Win the Future.
		Charlie Kirk, old friend.
		Welcome back to the Rubin Report.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Dave, you're a good friend.
		Honored to be here.
		Thank you for having me.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		We've done this a couple times, and I thought, how can I approach this interview in a way that's a little different than what we've done before?
		So I thought we'd start off.
		Give me your top 10 reasons you love Joe Biden.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Top 10 reasons I love Joe Biden.
		That's, you know, I will say he's actually made me prioritize things in life that matter.
		Not to say politics don't matter, but it's been such a dumpster fire.
		You have to kind of look outside of all the madness and you're like, okay, what really matters in life, right?
		Like, what exactly gives you purpose and meaning?
		Because obviously, the things that, you know, we used to, I used to look at the presidency as something I revere and I guess I still do and I love my country, but he's been so awful.
		It's like, okay, there's a couple of things I can control in my life, like family and relationships, friendships, career.
		And I'm going to focus on those things.
		And it's kind of the one of the few things I want to thank Joe Biden for is he has reinforced, at least for me, things that I control and things I cannot control.
		Unfortunately, I can't control the southern border.
		I can talk about it.
		It's wide open and it's a total disaster.
		But besides that, I'm not sure what else I would put on that list, Dave.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I thought maybe you could come up with three.
		I thought maybe there were going to be three, but I'll accept that.
		But for a guy like you.
		Yeah, go ahead.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, I guess if you want to kind of do the whole like, you know, glass half full thing and the perpetual optimist thing and the best thing about being surrounded is you can shoot in any direction thing, which is basically, look, I do think that there's been unintended consequences of what this regime has been trying to implement, which is the rise of the citizen and Trot.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I knew you were going to get there.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		That was one of the three I had in there.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		And like the homeschooling revolution and people really caring about their country again.
		And there is a window.
		There's an opportunity.
		There's a chance.
		There's a sliver.
		I don't think it's by any chance certain that this backfires on them so dramatically that it could be a political realignment, the likes of which our generation we haven't seen in 30 or 40 years.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe in the machine enough to believe that something like that could happen?
		Because that's the direction I thought you were going to go because it's like everything is so bad.
		Everything is so upside down.
		Even for guys like us who expected this thing to be bad, it's worse than most of us could have imagined.
		But do you think the machine will allow, like just in the last couple of days, watching the narrative on COVID shift, like, do you think it'll allow what should happen to happen, that the voice of the people will actually be heard?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, thankfully.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Between the media and the whole thing.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		That's what I'm talking about.
unidentified		Yeah.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, for sure, of course.
		Yeah.
		Thankfully, critical parts of the machine are falling apart, which gives me hope.
		I mean, CNN is basically a Democrat super PAC that no one watches.
		Facebook is cratering, which is really, really interesting to see.
		Rumble, which you and I really care about, is ascending.
		So there are certain trends right now that kind of go into maybe the machine isn't as strong as it once was.
		Americans' trust in government is an all-time low.
		Americans' trust in corporations are at all-time low.
		You're starting to see people care more about local than national trends, which is really, really important.
		So I think the machine is way weaker than it was even a year ago, and let alone five years ago.
		I think that there is kind of like a natural law component to this where if you try to build a multi-trillion dollar oligarchy or oligopoly, I should say, the laws of gravity are probably going to push back against you at some point.
		There will be leaks and dissension, civil war, fracturing.
		And you're seeing a lot of that, not just within the Democrat Party, but within a lot of the superstructures that you and I believe the actual power is vested in.
		So look, I could have a cynical take where I'm like, you know what, these people always have power.
		The infrastructure is impenetrable.
		But I'm not so sure of that.
		I think that there is a revival to challenge all these institutions.
		And Dave, you've played a really important part in this, which is those of us that love freedom and love the Constitution as the greatest political document ever, we're building our own infrastructure.
		We're building our own machine.
		And that's been a really exciting trend.
		I think the regime is really surprised by it.
		I think they're shocked, quite honestly, that we've been able to kind of stand up a YouTube competitor, a payment processing competitor, a Patreon competitor like locals.
		So quickly, you're starting to see a higher education competitor of University of Austin.
		And all of a sudden, this kind of this monopoly they had on these certain goods and services and credentialing institutions is being challenged in a very serious way.
		But they're still way more powerful than us.
		There's no doubt.
		But I'm optimistic that there might be some legitimate fault lines that are going to materialize in their demise.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		That would be a slightly better great reset than the great reset that they've been telling us about.
		But I'm curious for you.
		Look, I know you off camera too at this point, but I don't know that I've ever fully asked you this before.
		Like, you know, you were so obviously a close associate and through Turning Point in the Trump's campaign and you wrote the book, the MAGA Doctrine, the whole thing.
		To go from that, and, you know, I would go to Turning Point that the night that I met Trump at Mar-a-Lago, we were at dinner that very night there, and it was after an event you put together and all that stuff.
		And I say that because you were so associated with that.
		Now he's not in power.
		And I just wonder for you personally, like, what did the last year show?
		I'm not talking about the political part of my guy's not in power anymore, but just like the other, you were part of something that was fun and cool, at least from our perspective.
		And now you ain't in it.
		You know, the thing exists, but like it's not in power anymore.
		So like, what is that just personally for you?
		Like.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, first, it was really demoralizing, not from like an access standpoint or like the fact you could call the president, like whatever.
		It was just kind of demoralizing for the country, right?
		I mean, especially the month of January, we're like, okay, you know, at New Year's, I remember thinking, all right, okay, Biden's going to be president.
		At the very least, we can win these Senate races in Georgia.
		You know, we can have a check-in balance, separation of powers.
		And then January 5th happened.
		They're like, okay, we lost that.
		And then January 6th happened, which was a catastrophe, right?
		For a variety of different reasons.
		And so it was a demoralizing couple weeks in 2021.
		And our team at Turning Point USA, which has always been educationally focused, and our team at the Charlie Kirk show, which has obviously been very aligned with the Trump doctrine and his worldview, we're talking, what do we stand for?
		And we really went to work.
		You know, I traveled 330 days in the year of 2021 and went to campuses and churches.
		And we didn't talk a lot about Trump, honestly.
		And we didn't talk about Biden either.
		More than anything else, we talked about what it meant to be an American and what we stood for and why we stood for it.
		And it was definitely this moment where I also had to kind of reintroduce myself to a lot of people that just kind of knew me as, oh, you're the guy that defends Trump, right?
		And it was, I think, very well received in a lot of different ways.
		And I also think it forced our team and our show to go a level deeper.
		I spent more time in 2021 of reading deep books and spending time in very complex philosophy and really challenging my ideas and why I believe it and where does it come from because it wasn't just kind of like, okay, the left is out of their mind.
		We have to defend the president we have because he's doing a really good job.
		And you could kind of get really used to that, right?
		But then all of a sudden, when he's displaced from power, there's a lot of people that are saying, okay, do we want to go back to like the Liz Cheney kind of way of doing things?
		Or why do we want, you know, borders to be controlled?
		And so you have to kind of come from that with an approach that is philosophically based and rooted in a natural rights doctrine and also in timeless ideas while also respecting the fruits of the enlightenment, all these really important things.
		And so I think that we've been, I think we're better because of it, honestly.
		I think our show is more interesting.
		I think our organization is stronger.
		I think we're reaching more people.
		And, you know, I'm not to say that I'm thankful.
		I mean, the country's in horrible shape, but I think we were able to use what was an adversarial situation or a set of circumstances to our advantage.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that they think that they're doing good?
		I mean, this is a little bit of the road to hell kind of situation.
		Like, do you think, I mean, I don't know if Biden's in charge at this point, which if you want to comment on that, feel free.
		But like when they all put their heads on the pillow, when Saki lays down at night, Biden, the rest of them, the Surgeon General, all of these people that are associated with this thing, Fauci, all of them.
		Do you really think they're looking at the information, looking at what's going on here, supply chain, inflation, Afghanistan, et cetera, and going, boy, we really are doing a great job.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Man, you ask good questions.
		I got to tell you.
		I ask questions too every day.
		And it's a great question because I get this all the time.
		And people say, what is the motive, right?
		How do they judge success?
		Like, what does the whiteboard look like in the outer room of the oval, right?
		Like, are we going towards the mission accomplished or are we getting further away from it?
		And this is a hard thing for some people on the center right or people that love the Constitution to admit.
		It's not hard for me to admit because I kind of understand the left really well.
		I think they're right on schedule for what they want.
		And I really do believe that they want to be a willing participant in the World Economic Forum great reset.
		You mentioned it a little bit sarcastically earlier, but you and I both know this is a very real agenda.
unidentified		It's legit.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I just spent an hour with Glenn Beck on it.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		And I think that in order to get there, you have to first make America no longer a superpower.
		And that doesn't mean you have to kill everybody, right?
		I mean, I think there's some extremes people can take towards describing this, but you definitely have to destroy our currency.
		You have to deteriorate our sovereignty.
		You have to erode the national will.
		And then also you have to create mass uncertainty as to what it means to be an American.
		And the person that's probably done the best job of this is Nicole Hannah Jones from the 1619 Project.
		It's something we talk about every single day at Turning Point USA, which is if you can't tell an agreed upon American story, then you just don't have a country.
		I mean, it's such polar opposites where you and I would look at the American founding as a heroic breakthrough of the human story, where Nicole Hannah Jones looks at it as a regressive moment in the human story.
		There really isn't much in common from that point forward, right?
		When you can't agree on the Federalist Papers, the Declaration, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.
		And so I believe that the people in charge from Ron Klein to Biden, they might have their own little kind of wrinkles of where they think the country should go, but it's definitely in a place where they want to de-emphasize America's role in the world.
		They want to weaken America, and they think the world will be better because of it.
		This is the most important thing, though, is that, I mean, in the beginning of Aristotle's ethics, there's this incredible line that is hotly debated, which is all human action points towards some good.
		Now, you take out the mentally and politically insane from that.
		But really what he's getting at is that more evil has been done under people believing that they're doing good than anything else.
		You take Joseph Stalin.
		He actually thought he was bettering humanity or bettering himself or whatever.
		Very few people are actually, yes, I'm doing what is wrong and I'm going to keep on doing it.
		It's a very rare thing.
		And I think that these people in charge, and no, I don't think Biden's in charge.
		I think he's a puppet for all these other masters.
		I actually don't think very much about Biden.
		I actually really haven't engaged much in kind of the mental decline kind of meme verse, if you will.
		I think it's a little overdone.
		We all kind of know he's not there.
		I'm more interested in the people behind him and the reason they're doing all this.
		But yes, I think that from the Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen to Mayorkis to the Educational Secretary to all of them, I think that they believe that they are all doing what a good comrade should do to try and usher in a globalist type project and the American superpower status of a strong economy, being energy independent, a sound currency, and a national story that we all agree on.
		Those are things that are right at the heart of their agenda.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that conservatives, whatever this new wide pen thing is at this point, this anti-woke coalition, and we'll see how tightly it can hold.
		Do you think we just need a better story?
		Do you think the story of just telling American history, say, the way we've seen it or the way that you and I have talked about it for a long time, that maybe that isn't enough, just going back to, say, Reagan talking points as good and decent as they are.
		Like, do we need a new story, a new narrative to craft to capture young people?
		I mean, obviously that's what you guys are trying to do at Turning Point.
		But is just saying freedom and individual rights and capitalism, is it not enough that there has to be something else behind that too?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		It's not enough, but it will be enough this year, which worries me.
		It will be enough to take back power for Republicans and defeat the woke just to run against the woke.
		They're so unpopular.
		They're so awful at governing.
		And that's the thing, Dave, is that not only do they have bad ideas, they're actually bad at executing their bad ideas.
unidentified		I mean, it's like the worst possible kind of combination.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, that's the thing where I got in this debate the other day and someone says, Charlie, we need more technology in government so they can be more efficient.
		I'm like, you know, I'm actually really glad that they're slow.
		I'm really glad that they take Arbor Day off because if they didn't, then they'd be like Google, which we know how harmful they can be, which we'll get into the whole corporate side of this.
		But I'm worried because I'm afraid that there's going to be kind of a false stimulus effect to the conservative movement.
		They're like, oh, all we have to do is run against the woke.
		We take back every chamber of power, like the Glenn Youngkin thing, right?
		Where I'm afraid that we're going to need a lot more.
		And I'll give you an example of what a lot more looks like, which I think conservatives need to think very deeply about a national recovery program.
		I think that this country has been so severely damaged by unelected bureaucrats, especially young people, most suicidal, drug-addicted, alcohol-addicted, most anxious, depressed, medicated generation in history, that I think there needs to be an intergenerational apology to try to get this generation back on track.
		And I'm not saying massive government programs or some sort of climate core like AOC wants, but I think we should try to make it easier to try to have conservatizing events.
		And the three conservatizing events, if you will just accept the term, is to own property, to get married and have kids.
		And hopefully a nice fourth one is have a job that means something to you, right?
		That isn't like a minimum wage job or some sort of woke social media manager for Goldman Sachs or whatever, right?
		Those four things are harder than ever for this generation to grab onto.
		And I think that we need to have pro-market-based conversations outside of just kind of the immediate muscle memory of the dogma of the kind of ghosts of Reagan past and say, how do we make it easier for a 28-year-old that's $100,000 in student loan debt that was locked down for a couple years, right, is really demoralized, might be on an unnecessary regimen of antidepressants.
		How do we make it easier for them to break through and buy quote unquote equity in the American project, right?
		Because that actually is a really good thing for the country.
		People don't burn down Wendy's if they have a mortgage.
		When you're renting all the time, you become a perfect population that could be captured by these kind of woke socialist revolutionaries.
		And so, no, I don't think it's just enough to kind of have the slogans.
		I think we need to think creatively about these things.
		And I think we also need to know why we believe and what we believe it.
		The Constitution needs to be our North Star.
		It is the greatest political document ever.
		Nothing we should do should violate the four basic tenets of the Constitution.
		Separation of powers, consent to the governed, independent judiciary, and balance of power, basically.
		That's the core basis of the U.S. Constitution.
		But with that being said, though, Dave, I think that we have portions of the American population that have been so set back by the lockdowns and government interference that if we don't come up with something more robust or exciting, we're going to be looking at a potential political population that will entertain seriously radical ideas.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		I mean, how much worse it could be if we don't do something to heal some of these wounds.
		You accidentally said ghosts of Rogan passed.
		We'll get to that.
		We'll get to that.
		That will be a hell of a segue we're going to slide into when we talk about big tech in just a little bit.
		But you said something interesting there about the intergenerational version of this.
		And I've been thinking about this a lot, that so many of the people that are in power right now, or at least appear to be in power, say Joe Biden, say Nancy Pelosi, you know, any of these people, really any of them.
		Diane Feinstein, who everyone knows is almost incapacitated at this point.
		Just the amount of, you know, they're not, I guess they're upper end boomers, but they're also the last of the great generation, something like that.
		But these people that are in their, say, mid-70s and up, that are still clinging to power.
		Nancy Pelosi with that ridiculous reelection video from two weeks ago.
		And it's like, lady, you're 81.
		Go be a grandma.
		Like enough.
		Do you think there's something?
		What do you think that is psychologically maybe about that generation that they can't let go?
		Because that does seem to be a big problem here.
		And I've seen in just in the last couple of weeks that suddenly Gen X, I'm 45, right in the middle of Gen X. Like my generation, you're a little younger than me.
		So you're not, you're Gen Y. Is that fair to say?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I'm millennial.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		You're millennial, no offense.
		But that 35, 36 to say 54 year olds, we just haven't had our chance yet because for some reason those people kept hanging on at every level.
		Do you think there's something psychologically going on there that didn't allow them to let go?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're going to get me in a lot of trouble, Dave, because we talk about this a lot.
		And the angriest emails I get are on this topic.
		So buckle up, I suppose.
		You said something super interesting, which Nancy Pelosi, go be a grandma.
		And she kind of still sees herself as this like 33-year-old kind of like AIDS crusader in West San Francisco that is getting higher.
		Yeah, but do you know what I mean?
		Which is like, okay, like you've had your chance.
		Go look beyond yourself.
		That's what a grandma is all about, right?
		Like go look about, go look towards the next generation.
		And are you actually preserving things that are beautiful, true, and good?
		For her, it's kind of like, no, I still have to have that one more election cycle.
		You don't understand because that's when the real revolution is going to happen.
		And so, look, I mean, it's the tyranny of the Septuagarians and the octogenarians.
		And there's a lot of great people in the 70s and 80s category in our country.
		It just so happens none of them are in leadership right now.
		So it just so happens that the cream that whatever has risen to the top isn't the best.
		And so you kind of have a through line of Biden and Schumer and Pelosi that have been in this shtick for 30 or 40 years, literally.
		And they don't really care about the damage they're leaving to the next generation.
		It's kind of like they want to have their two to four years to rule over the ashes and they're going to die.
		And I hate to be so morbid about it, but they're on the back nine of the back nine.
		They're on like whole 17, right?
		And so you got to start to all of a sudden look like, who's the next group of people that are going to be playing?
		Now, you know, you've had Eric Weinstein on your program before.
		He talks about the ego, the embedded growth obligation.
		I think that's a really smart perspective about how this is a generation that has literally experienced nothing but prosperity economically their entire life and has gotten used to it and acts as if that is something that is just kind of baked in the human existence.
		Things get better.
		Don't get in my way.
		But I think that the entire way that we reacted to COVID kind of exposes all of this.
		I think it does so in bright and dramatic colors, which is it really is kind of the first modern civilization that has willingly sacrificed the young to placate the old.
		And there is no other way to describe it.
		I mean, some people will reject the premise, but we went from shutting down schools because it might hurt kids to shutting down schools because they might transmit a virus to grandma.
		That's a totally different moral argument, by the way.
		Totally different.
		The first moral argument is like, okay, it might kill young people.
		I get that.
		The next is, oh, now they might get infected and they might kill grandma.
		I'm not into that.
		Obviously, I want to protect seniors, but that's a totally different argument, which is like, okay, we must inhibit your development.
		We must suppress your life experience and your activities because you might then hurt the generation that does not have as many years left to live.
		And so, yes, I think an intergenerational apology is necessary, totally.
		And I will say that kind of that 35 to 54 year old bracket is the, I think it is going to be, in my opinion, the great swing to the right that no one expected.
		I think there's more red pilling happening between ages 35 to 54.
		And there's a lot of boomers that are really conservative and God bless them for that.
		And they continue to be.
		But there is kind of this question of like the 42-year-old mom that looks, she's like, wait a second, you know, I wasn't able to get the career advancement that maybe they wanted because I had to wait for boomers to age out.
		And now my kids have to wear masks because a bunch of Septuagintarians are worried about this.
		And I think that we're experiencing the kind of the climax of generational tension.
		And we saw this.
		I'll say one final thing in this, Dave, which is this is nothing new.
		This kind of immoral behavior first manifested itself through fiscal policy.
		A generation that was willing to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to add to the national debt in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 with no regard for the fiscal health of future generations is the same type of generation that locks down seventh graders and doesn't think anything of it.
		It's like, you know, we just do that around here, okay?
		Like, we'll put their life on hold.
		We'll steal their savings, we'll steal their purchasing power because I'm important and I matter.
		And I think that really, I think that betrays the social contract.
		I think it goes directly against what it means to be a patriotic citizen.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		You say 35 to 54 are going to be the red pill generation.
		It's like, I'm 45.
		I know a little something about this red pill situation, right?
		So it's like, I'm with you, man.
		I feel it.
		You know, you see those pictures online of, you know, Stacey Abrams unmasked in front of the kids and Hokul over in New York smiling with the kids.
		It's like, these kids are going to do some pretty horrible things to old people one day.
		You can really feel it.
		Do you, not just to talk about it at an idea level, but because you're around so many college kids, kids, I mean, they're young adults through Turning Point.
		Have you seen a real shift in their attitudes on this stuff?
		You know, we go to the events.
		When I go to Turning Point Events, it's always so positive and fun and all that stuff.
		But like, have you seen a difference in the way they're reacting with the ideas or resentment or whatever it might be?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Definitely on the center right for sure.
		Our students are pushing back like crazy.
		We have a list.
		I was just going through it.
		We have 35 schools that have staged walkouts in the last 24 hours at Turning Point USA over the mask mandates.
		And we support them 100%.
		We're helping them with PR support and Times Legal support, all that stuff, because the mask mandates have gone out of control.
		But I will say, Dave, that the mass propaganda, dare I say mass formation psychosis?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		You're trying to get us both taken out, man.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, there we go.
		Well, I figure this will be on local, so we know the owner.
		They won't be.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		By Spotify.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
		But, you know, that kind of mass propaganda campaign has really worked on a lot of young people.
		And it's kind of a great irony where, and this is a stereotype, but the average 70-year-old, 60- or 70-year-old right now is far less concerned about COVID than I think the average 17-year-old.
		And that's a stereotype.
		That's like a generalization, I should say.
		But there has been a lot of induced fear amongst high school and college kids completely and totally unnecessarily.
		And there's a cost to pay for that.
		It's going to be a generation that is the least free-thinking generation, absent our intervention and trying to get them their humanity back.
		It's the most medicated generation, most suicidal generation, the most confused generation, the most directionalist generation.
		But we're starting to see some pushback against this and some hopefully writing of that trajectory.
		But I don't think it's enough.
		I don't think that this is going to fix itself.
		I think that we need, and I don't say this lightly, you know that I'm a small government conservative guy, but I think that we need a collective intervention to try to fix some of these trends that have gone so awry.
		I don't just think that we're like, oh, well, we shut everything down for two years.
		We vaccinated kids who didn't need it and put masks on them.
		They had no social development.
		They are not speaking the way they should.
		The IQs are stunted.
		Like everything's going to kind of sort itself out.
		I'm not as convinced of that.
		I'm not.
		I think there's some very interesting, bold, robust, entrepreneurial and creative ideas that could probably fix this.
		But I'll be honest, Dave, there's been a little glimmer of hope amongst some of the young people, but it's nowhere near the type of rebellion that I would like to see.
		It isn't.
		I saw far more activism and energy around Greta Thunberg's The World is Ending Climate Change propaganda and far more energy amongst the average high school kid around Floyd Apalooza than I did around mask mandates, vaccine mandates, or being locked down and not being able to see their friends.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and you're not overstating this stuff.
		I just read this crazy study about what masks have done to adolescent children who are now having all sorts of delayed speech.
		Literally, the muscles in their mouths are not developing the way that they are supposed to because they don't move their mouths and they don't talk enough.
		And they can't see the mouth of the teacher so you can mimic it to speak properly.
		I mean, it's really, really crazy stuff.
		What do you think of the pivot that they're about to do?
		We can see it happening right in front of our eyes.
		They are the good guys.
		They didn't want to lock us down.
		They're going to somehow pin this on.
		That was the Republicans that did it.
		They're all just repeating the stuff that Charlie Kirk, that Charlie Kirk, that Ron DeSantis was saying two years ago, but Charlie Kirk was probably saying some of it too.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		We were saying the same thing.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Do you admire the pivot that they're about to do that they're in the process of doing right now?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Do I admire it?
		No, I think it's good for the country.
		Yeah, it's better now than 10 years from now.
unidentified		Sure.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Good.
		Terrific.
		But I mean, look, I don't say this slightly.
		There needs to be justice.
		People need to go to jail for what they did.
		There needs to be some sort of mass firing campaign, decredentialing campaign.
		None of that's probably going to happen.
		I'll be very honest.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but what would that really look like?
		Because I've kind of thought about it.
		Like, I do think some of these people probably in a really sane society that would grapple with this properly, some of these people would end up in jail, like literally in jail.
		But what does that really look like?
		We're going to have a Nuremberg for COVID-19.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I would love Nuremberg, but I mean, some people say that's radical.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		But I mean, there is, I think, a lot of the tenets of Nuremberg.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Where's the Media Matters clip for today?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, I mean, we've done entire shows on Nuremberg, but yeah, sure, they could pick it up and run with it.
		But that's probably not going to happen.
		I try to live in the land of reality.
		I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
		What I would like to see, though, happen, Dave, is a legitimate public policy and legislative campaign around medical autonomy, around medical freedom.
		And I think there's a lot of answers we still do not have.
		We do not have answers around the money flow from a lot of these pharmaceutical companies to politicians or their campaigns.
		We do not have answers as to why early treatments were suppressed.
		We've been a very outspoken program on ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, melatonin, aspirin, monoclonal antibodies, intravenous therapy, vitamin D levels.
		I think it's one of the great injustices of my life, the fact that most Americans were not properly exposed to those things.
		But don't worry, we're subsidizing crack cocaine pipes for people in San Francisco.
		All the while the controlled substance our government cares about is the perfectly safe and probably very, very effective ivermectin.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Dude, Biden sent me three crack pipes.
		I only need one.
		You want me to send you one?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Is that I wouldn't know what to do with it, to be very honest.
		So I haven't exactly ventured into that domain of human existence.
		So yeah, he'd give me lip balm in case my lips get too chapped while smoking crack on the, you know, in Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.
		But yeah, look, what would justice look like?
		I don't know, but we definitely need some action, right?
		We need legislative changes.
		We also, I think, just from a more constitutional perspective, we have to make sure the emergency use powers are never used again by these governors and mayors.
		I know that might be wishful thinking, but I think in some red states, they were used and abused way too much.
		I think these legislatures have to step up.
		And look, if you want to shut down a state, go through the legislative process.
		I totally, I would say that's fine.
		If like you can get the Ohio state house and state Senate to shut down a state for 30 days, I actually think that's okay.
		I think that the courts might knock it down here and there.
		But just like the fact that a governor can just sign a piece of paper and shut down bars in schools, I think that's a usurpation of what the Constitution, especially on a state-based level and definitely a federal level, is supposed to be able to do.
		I'll give you another example.
		The fact that Joe Biden can just sign a piece of paper and say you have to wear a mask on an airplane, go through the legislative process.
		So those are some remedies for sure that we have to do that I think could slow down kind of this indulgence of autocratic and tyrannical behavior we've seen.
		But we're not going to get the justice that I would want to see, Dave.
		I think that any doctor that interfered with a patient trying to get ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine needs to be held criminally accountable.
		And I don't say that lightly.
		And Dave, you get a lot of emails.
		I get a ton of emails.
		I have hundreds of emails of people that have relatives that died in the hospital, and they were trying to give them these life-saving drugs.
		And the hospital says, oh, those drugs might kill them.
		And then they die.
		And so it's like, we're dealing from already the potential of we know death is in the cards.
		So why wouldn't you try some of the more, you know, let's say, you know, censored treatments?
		And so I think there needs to be justice with that and the hospitals need to be held accountable.
		But just kind of managing expectations, that's probably not going to happen.
		But the last thing you said, do I admire it?
		No, I don't admire it.
		Why are they doing it?
		Well, the science has not changed.
		No matter what, you know, Dr. Wentz says, Leanne Wen has changed because it's changed.
		Yeah, I mean, look, and this is the thing is that trust the science, trust the science.
		We did a whole podcast on this that I think it was really well received, one of the best podcasts we've done in a while as far as like response, which is that they conflate two things, right?
		So they conflate things that we would call the natural law, like force equals mass times acceleration, the irrefutable tenets of Western science, right?
		The inquiry into the natural world, second law of thermodynamics, the inevitable law of decay.
		And they conflate that with conjecture and hypothesis, right?
		So they put that all into kind of the same term as if if you challenge wearing three masks while you shower, you're somehow at war with Copernicus, right?
		And like the average engineer who works at Ford, right, is like, well, you know, I'm trading the sciences.
		I don't ever want to question that.
		When in reality, they had that which we know and that which we think we know.
		And they were never honest enough to separate those two things.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Charlie, you're blowing my mind right now.
		I got to write this down.
		You telling me that A squared plus B squared equals C squared is more valid than when you're at a restaurant, you can walk in without a mask or when you have a mask and you walk in and you can take it off and you sit.
		Is that what you're telling me here?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I'm telling that, you know, I know it might really blow your audience's mind that the things we know in the Western scientific tradition that have been true, that really proven to be the laws of nature and nature is God, which Thomas Jefferson brilliantly wrote in the Declaration, is far better science than vaccinating a six-month-old with a vaccine against a virus that isn't going to harm them significantly anyway.
		Or let's just think of all this, the scientific calisthenics that we've heard in just the last couple of weeks.
		Was it Gavin New Eric Garcetti said he held his breath when he took a picture at SoFi Stadium?
		Or Gavin Newsom, he said, well, I just took a picture, I put the mask back on.
		I mean, and just the, or Dr. Vivek Murphy, who said you have to wear masks at home around your children.
		That was in the last couple of months.
		And we know the science is totally insane.
		I mean, you take the mask mandate on planes, for example.
		It's right.
		It's the only virus in the history of communicable diseases that does not come out as soon as the beverage cart comes out.
		It stops.
		It's so scared of the hot coffee and the sanitized Coke bottle, you know, Coke cans that it stops all transmission.
		But from going from New York to LA for a year and a half of the pandemic, you could not go eat indoors.
		But if you wanted to go eat indoors, just go board American Airlines at JFK and fly to LAX.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		But we all folded.
		We all kind of folded.
		You know, I said to my guys, it's like, I'm doing just fine.
		I'm not complaining about life.
		But my goal after these last two years is to become so rich I never have to fly commercial again because I flew private twice for the first time ever in this past year.
		And they've made the flying experience.
		Even though, yes, you can take off your mask to drink your coffee and eat your small chicken.
		It just ain't right what they're doing.
		But do you think the federal mask mandate?
		I mean, I haven't heard any talk about they're going to stop it on airplanes.
		And we've got idiots like Swalwell pushing it forever.
		I don't step at the Chinese spy, but that's a whole other thing.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I mean, yeah, I don't know if he did it on a plane or not.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		That would be a very interesting chapter two of the Fang Fang Diary.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		As long as he had his mask on.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's right.
		I mean, that's correct.
		So do I think the federal mask mandate will be lifted?
		No, and you actually, you make a really important point, which is because the people in charge aren't affected by it.
		Like, Biden doesn't fly commercial.
		He flies Air Force One.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I mean, and so.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		But he always puts his mask on right before he gets off Air Force One.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I always love that when it's like, oh, yeah, yeah, you guys have been wearing it on the helicopter at Air Force One.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		And it's COVID theater, but this goes to a deeper point that the founding fathers warned us against.
		And the more we kind of dwell and we marinate and ruminate on the brilliance and the wisdom of the founding fathers, we realize they saw a lot of this coming, which I think in Federalist 51 or one of those associates, Madison warned, what would happen if the group of rulers are exempt from the laws that they push upon the citizenry?
		And that's why Congress technically can't pass laws that they are immune from.
		They found carve-outs and ways to do that.
		But the federal mask man on airplanes is a perfect example of this, which is a vast majority of the members of Congress, and especially people financing the members of Congress, they're totally unaffected by it.
		And their kids go to private schools where there are no mask mandates, and they fly on private jets where there's no mask mandates.
		And yeah, look, Governor Nussalini married into the Siebel family.
		I don't know the last time he flew commercial, right?
		He's flying around probably on a Gulf Stream or a Learjet or whatever.
		And I guarantee you the family's not masking, you know, when they hit 15,000 or 20,000 feet.
		No, they're having a great time and they're laughing about it.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Charlie, they spent 200 grand on a one-week vacation in Cabo about three months ago, right?
		The same week he extended his emergency powers.
		I don't live there anymore, by the way.
		Very exciting, can't you tell?
		Look at that.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're happier.
		You're paying more taxes, right?
		You've become more conservative, which is just delightful.
		But yeah, we call it hypocrisy.
		It's not, it's hierarchy, Dave.
		It's not hypocrisy.
		It's I am better than you.
		I'm going to crush you.
unidentified		And I don't care.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, he's a bad, he's a bad dude.
		But all right, I know we can go on this stuff forever.
		But let's link some of this to the big tech stuff that you and I have been talking about forever.
		And as you said, we're both involved in the Rumble situation.
		You were sort of early on with the Rumble team.
		Obviously, locals merge with Rumble.
		There's a lot going on there.
		Do you honestly think we have a chance?
		I mean, even just in the last couple of days, look, we put our best foot forward.
		We made this offer to Joe Rogan.
		He may not take it, but we felt it was the best thing we could do to defend our principles and fight for what we believe in.
		We shall see.
		You know, we're fighting on every front, the payment processor front, the AWS front, the algorithm front.
		But do you think we can really do it?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		We don't have a choice.
		We have to win.
		We have to get this right or else everything we love falls apart.
		I have been so encouraged, though, just in the last 12 months, Dave, how much momentum there is behind this kind of new technology space.
		From locals, which is terrific, which is a way to bypass the Patreon gatekeepers, to the content creators that have gone all in on Rumble, you, our program, Dan Bongino, Dinesh D'Souza, Russell Brand, Tulsi Gabbard, you know, freedom-loving, liberty-loving people all across the spectrum, but do believe that big tech tyranny is an existential threat.
		I thought the offer to Rogan was really brilliant.
		I don't know Rogan.
		I've met him once.
		I think it would be really smart of him personally to take the Rumble deal because they are not going to stop.
		This censorship hit job train.
		He says, oh, has Spotify stood by me?
		I don't think so.
		They're removing episodes and putting disclaimers.
		You and I are way too cynical for that, Dave.
		We've been through this entire program many times.
		And maybe a couple years ago, we might have said that.
		But, and look, it's definitely the Rumble was really smart to offer the $100 million because it made it legit.
		And we'll see what Rogan ends up doing, right?
		I mean, he's signaled towards Spotify or whatever.
		But the point is that it wasn't totally laughed off, Dave.
		And that shows how real Rumble is, right?
		That shows that we can win this.
		So to answer your question on a probability argument, I first made a moral argument.
		We have to win this.
		We have to do this.
		I think Rumble is going to be a 20 or 30 or $40 billion company.
		I'm confident of that because there is a center right of the planet, not just the country, that is desiring a platform that actually allows voices to speak their mind and not be taken off and not have these sort of woke gatekeepers.
		But look, there are going to be institutional challenges.
		But to, you know, I know we keep talking about Rumble, but they're not alone.
		There's other people in playing, but Rumble's definitely the most sophisticated, I think best funded and most momentum.
		I think that I think that it's ahead of schedule.
		And I think that there's going to be starts.
		I think there's some chatter already in Silicon Valley of what are we going to do about these Rumble guys?
		Well, you can't shut off their servers, right?
		You could probably go after their advertisers for now, but then you got locals, which is hundreds of thousands of grassroots people supporting people via Patreon, which is going to be incredibly effective to be able to kind of have the super chat feature of videos, which is a huge revenue source for Google.
		There'll be institutional ads that will always go behind Rumble that are on the center, right?
		And so what else do they kind of have in the tickler file to try to go after Rumble?
		Okay, they're going to try to go after the ad network.
		They're going to try to go after New York Times, Washington Post.
		You're platforming hateful people.
		Yeah, but when you start to have a roster of Dave Rubin, Charlie Kirk, you know, Daily Wire is coming online is what I'm hearing.
		You have Dan Bongino and others.
		All of a sudden, you're like, yeah, okay, we're going to link arms and we've created Technado.
		And we have Article 6 and you attack one of us.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Technado.
		You didn't just come up with that, did you?
		You used that one before.
		Come on.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I've never said it out loud, but I have wrote it.
		I have a whole pamphlet of kind of one-liners, but you could use it.
		Technado.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Technato.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		It's Article 5 or Article 6 of NATO, which is attack on one of us is attacked on all of us, right?
		And to kind of tie in the whole Ukrainian thing, that's why Ukraine and NATO is such a controversial thing.
		It's like Putin crosses the line.
		It's the same as invading Paris or London.
		And it's like, okay, you go after Dave Rubin, then you have to deal with all of us and our combined power and our combined followers.
		And I'm starting to see that solidarity.
		And guess what?
		That word solidarity is something that we freedom-loving people don't do well.
		But when we do it, we win.
		It's not in our blood.
		We're all entrepreneurs or individuals.
		We think we could do things better than each other, right?
		We're competitors.
		You know, we'll go out to dinner with one another and they'll be like, yeah, I kind of like that idea and that, like, whatever.
		But that's what's beautiful about markets.
		But now we're at war and we need solidarity and we need alliances.
		So I think we got a chance to win.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I like that every time I'm on your show, when I say something clever, you always say to me, I'm stealing that.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		But I'm going to credit you for this Technado.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		You got it.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		You know, that's the difference.
		That's the difference between us.
		Right.
		But do you see, okay, so let's say we build this stuff and it's all great.
		And yes, we are working real hard and there's a lot of questions, but there's a lot of answers as well.
		So we start building all that.
		We know that the trends where people are moving are going very heavily, you know, to freedom-loving places.
		Nobody's moving to blue states right now.
		I think California lost almost 400,000 people last year.
		First loss of population ever.
		As these things continue to go, I mean, what keeps us the United States?
		If we've just got our own products and we've got our own states and they've got their products and their states, where are we united?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, we aren't.
		And you're right.
		And so just to kind of reinforce the point, though, you know, Netflix is down, Facebook is down, California is down.
		Florida is up.
		Texas is up.
		Rumble is up.
		Right.
		So look, I've said this for quite some time.
		I think we're living through a slow motion secession movement and the act of secession is happening on United Airlines every day in the nonstop flight from Los Angeles to Orlando or from Los Angeles to Miami.
		It's a movement of secession and it's not, it's not a one that breaks the country apart immediately, but they're starting to say out loud what I have feared.
		And it's mostly pop icon people, you know, Sarah Silverman or that guy from Hellboy, whatever his name is.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		No, that's not bad, Ron Perlman.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, whatever.
		And they're saying it out loud.
		I don't want to live in the country with you.
		You don't want to live with me.
		Let's go our separate ways.
		And a very provocative but honest thought exercise for your audience and for all of us to kind of dwell over, which is what do I, Charlie Kirk, who live in Phoenix, what do I have in common with a San Francisco woke activist that's 24 years old that just graduated from UC Berkeley?
		I believe America's awesome.
		They believe America is awful.
		I believe in basic natural rights.
		They believe in collective and tribal rights.
		I believe in free speech.
		They believe in power.
		I believe that we should have borders.
		They don't believe in borders.
		I could go through the whole checkpoint.
		The checklist.
		The only thing that we have in common is the dollar bill that we're trading.
		It's literally the whole project is basically hinging on a currency.
		And that is not an over-exaggeration.
		You don't have a shared story.
		You don't have shared values.
		You don't have a shared future.
		You don't have shared policy prescriptions.
		Everything is quote unquote politicized and divided.
		And so, you know, we've kind of dwelled in this field to the great, you know, the great cost of being written up in media matters, which is a wonderful thing to happen.
		They're like PR experts.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		They love you over there.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		They like you more than me with all the pieces they do on you.
unidentified		It's great.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		They write up what you say and it's right there.
		And then you could share it.
		Like, hey, look, but look, it's we are, we are right on the hinge.
		We're right on the edge of a national divorce.
		Now, I have a contrarian view on this, which is I actually think the sooner we build the parallel economy and we have these other mediums, I actually think it de-escalates the chance for a national divorce.
		I think it's the exact opposite.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I like that.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Actually, it's kind of like, all right, you do you, we do us.
		Like, maybe we can have like a five-year cooling off period before we actually sign the divorce papers, right?
		And I don't think, I think the more that we live under their tyranny, you're going to see real radicalism rise up that I hate and you hate, right?
		Where people are starting to talk about things that I don't want the country to break up.
		I think it's an awful thing.
		It's my home.
		It's your home.
		I don't want to have to show a passport when I go to LAX.
		It's like, I want that to be my fellow countrymen.
		I don't know if they believe that.
		I think that they want to, I think, there's two thoughts on this, right?
		Which is most of the leftist rulers will reject a national divorce because they want the whole enchilada, right?
		They want every county.
		They want every inch and they want us to live in their tyranny.
		Like they are up at night really angry that some Baptist preacher in Enid, Oklahoma is not like perfectly in alignment with like every single one of their worldviews, right?
		Like that really bothers them.
		Where it's like as a conservative, like, I don't really care about some guy in Brooklyn that hates me.
		Like, okay, whatever.
		It's like, so who's the actual liberal in this equation, right?
		Like, who's the live and let live guy?
unidentified		Right.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		It's like, is it the Baptist preacher, the conservative in Phoenix?
		Or is it like the person in Brooklyn that's really angry that someone disagrees with them in like central Iowa?
		But, you know, that's part of it.
		But I think that, so those are the kind of the imperial Democrats, right?
		They want to take over territory.
		It's like, we are not going to stop till everyone succumbs to our agenda.
		And then the other side of it, though, are like the Sarah Silverman, Ron Perlman types, which they're actually being more humble and honest.
		I have to say that I have way more respect for people that are like, let's just break up and not fight.
		And that's actually a better, that's a better starting point than like, we're going to take over Kansas.
		Like, well, hold on, hold on a second.
		Like, probably not going to have, that's not in the cards.
		Does that make sense?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but can I put a fly in that ointment on the second one for you, which is they're saying let's break up and just that's it, but they'll never let that be.
		I think you, you would agree with that, right?
		If we, if we give them the breakup that they want, Sarah Silverman, guess what she wants?
		It's like, she'll never stop.
		She's not going to stop as Florida flourishes, as Arizona flourishes and Texas flourishes, and as their places, you know, just crumble.
		They're not going to stop now.
		They're going to want what we got.
		So the second one might be more honest, but it's not, I don't think it's fully thought through.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		No, it's not thought through.
		And look, there's, and this is not an exaggeration.
		There's a thousand externalities that I don't have answers for.
		Military water rights, ports of entry, right?
		Like who gets rights to minerals?
		How do you travel back and forth?
		How do you divide the citizenship?
		What if you don't want to live there?
		I mean, it's like, again, we have, if we actually put our heads together, there's enough mature people that could probably figure this out.
		But if we're dealing with Chuck Schumer, like, I don't know, like that's probably not going to go well.
		Do you know what I mean?
		He's like, no, no, no, no.
		Actually, I want Marshallton, Iowa.
		Like, you can't have, right?
		And so, yeah, that's why I and you, we want to heal this land.
		We want this to work.
		We want this republic to stay together.
		I don't think there is a manageable exit from this.
		And I don't, I would rather solve this with ballots than bullets, as Abraham Lincoln said.
		And I don't want this to go to conflict.
		I'm afraid it's trending that way.
		And the media always says like, oh, Charlie thinks a civil war is coming.
		First of all, I never use that term.
		But when I say conflict, I don't think that's out of the cards.
		I want it to happen, but you can only raise the temperature in the room so much before you kind of provoke a kinetic response.
		And so I actually think the parallel economy is going to be an unintended pressure release valve for liberty-loving people across the country, which is like, okay, now I at least have a place I can watch videos.
		Like now I have a place I can bank, right?
		Now I have a place I can get a mortgage.
		And I think that's going to hopefully bring the temperature down in the room despite the, you know, the best wishes of the other side.
		But it seems like they want conflict, which is a whole different conversation for a different time.
		It seems like they want us to punch first and then they could justify the security state apparatus behind it.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, this concept of building the parallel economy purely to keep it together is actually interesting because most people think of it as, oh, that accelerates the separation because then we can just go our separate ways.
		But I like this.
		I like this release valve idea, Kirk.
		You got one today.
		Very impressed.
unidentified		Thank you.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		You got one.
		All right.
		Now let me get you in some real trouble.
		Because everybody is looking to the midterms and there's this feeling that there's going to be this red wave.
		Although, as I said, we're seeing the pivot happen in real time.
		And you can also feel the media trying to link January 6th to somehow the truckers and that we're exporting a worldwide insurrection and all of this nonsense.
		But I want to ask you this.
		Well, A, I guess give me a little bit of your take on what you think is going to happen in the midterms and are there areas we could focus in to make sure that we get a nice result.
		But B, you know, everyone's looking at the 2024 situation.
		I want DeSantis to stay the governor of Florida.
		That's what I want.
		I think the state you live in is way more important.
		I think he's only been in one term so far.
		He's done a heck of a job.
		I just think that's more important than the presidency, believe it or not, although obviously it is important.
		Do you, as a guy that at least part-time lives in Florida, or is there a lot, do you like that idea?
		Do you think he should run?
		Where does Trump fall out?
		What do you know on the inside?
		The whole damn thing, Charlie.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I'll start with the midterms.
		I think Republicans are going to do well.
		I'm worried that we're not going to do nearly as well as we should.
		Every single indicator shows Republicans are going to take back the House.
		Senate is a little bit up for grabs.
		This should be a 60 or 70 year seat majority for the House of Representatives, which is enough where you could hold on to that for at least two or three more cycles.
		So I don't know.
		It remains to be seen.
		Democrats are going to try to correct a couple things.
		You could start to see that already.
		They're having Obama come in and try to tell them to not be so radical out loud.
		He's really good at kind of saying, stop telling the truth, right?
		Like that, that's kind of his whole deal, to try to tell people that are running for office to just camouflage the radicalism, right?
		Just tell people what they want to hear.
		So I think that they're going to, I think they're going to get their parade in order shortly.
		That's my warning to Republicans.
		I still think we're going to do very, very well, especially in some of these Senate races like Arizona and Georgia.
		I think it'll be a seven to 10 point swing on top of what things naturally are.
		I'm afraid, I'll reinforce a point I said earlier, I think it will be a misleading indicator of the health of the Republican Party because of how bad the Democrats are.
		This will be a massive indictment of the woke and the Democrats and the insane and the COVID lockdowns where people are just looking for some way that they can just like, what can I vote for that isn't them?
		I think Virginia was an example of that.
		I think the incredibly unexpected airtight race in New Jersey was an example of that.
		I think a Republican winning the city attorney's race in Seattle was an example of that.
		That's all back in November, but it's important to remind people of that.
		So that's one thing.
		I'm happy to go more into that.
		It's still, it's too early to kind of make predictions on like seat majorities, but I am not seeing from Republicans what I really want, which is a newt gingrich style contract with America promises clear and concise.
		Here's what we're going to do.
		And it's not just, you know, free trade and giving China what they want and a mass amnesty plan and lower taxes.
		And socialism is bad enough, right?
		I think voters want more than that.
		And I think they want honesty.
		So on the Trump thing in 2024, he is going to run.
		Every single indication points towards that.
		I think actually Trump will benefit from a primary challenge.
		I think that if he actually has to run against somebody who isn't a joke, I actually think that would really be good for him.
		I think that's one of the things that made him such a powerful general election candidate in 2016 because he had some of the most amazing metaphorical political CrossFit training one could have.
		I mean, he ran up against like 29,000 people, right?
		It was like 16, but it was like from every direction, right?
		It was like, boom, Scott Walker and boom, Ben Carson.
		It was like Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz.
		It was like nonstop.
		By the time he had to run against Hillary, he's like, I ran against 16 people.
		This is nothing.
		So I think that I'm not trying to encourage someone to run against him.
		I would rather see him obviously go unopposed if that's necessary.
		It's probably better for him in the sense of, you know, not having to spend as much money.
		But I actually think kind of shaking off kind of some of the dust and getting back into the metaphorical ring could be really, really good for him.
		As far as DeSantis goes, I think he's unbelievable.
		I think he's the greatest governor of the last 10 or 20 or 30 years.
		I can't think of a better governor.
		Ron DeSantis has done everything right and everything issue that matters to me, from vaccine mandates to opening up Florida to being strong on crime across the board.
		He's been phenomenal.
		I think someone like DeSantis, or it could be him, is the future of the Republican Party.
		I truly do.
		But Trump's going to run, and that's going to be a challenge for a lot of people.
		I think that once you win one presidential election, you deserve a chance to run again.
		I really do.
		In 2020, there were massive irregularities.
		Happy to get into all the kind of voter fraud conversation if you want.
		I think Dinesh D'Souza's new film is extraordinary in what it looks into, and the evidence is very, very compelling.
		I think some of that could be shirred up.
		I think Trump could win again.
		And look, I think that there's positives and negatives to him running again.
	The positives are he was a terrific president.
	He was tremendous.
	We know what we're getting.
	He has a base unlike anything we've ever seen.
	He'll raise a bunch of money in small dollar donations.
	He'll work his tail off.
	And I think that he also has a record to run on in contrast to this current absolute dumpster fire that we are seeing in real time.
	And also, make no mistake, I don't think people are really looking forward to having another Democrat president after four years.
	If we had, I want people to think about this, if we had a parliamentary system and there was right now a national vote of no confidence against Joe Biden, he'd get run out of there immediately.
	Now, we don't have that type of system, right?
	We just don't.
	But if the election were held today, Donald Trump would just clobber him in every, like he would win like 40 states.
	I think he would win New Hampshire.
	He'd win Nevada.
	And so, look, I also think, though, that Trump has to have, he has to make some adjustments going in 2024.
	If you're running up against a self-destructive candidate, do not get in the way of your enemy defeating himself.
	I think that was something that's a great learning lesson from 2020.
	And I think 2016, Trump, where he was big, bold, ambitious, and he was willing to capture the imagination of the American people.
	I think he has to play a little bit more into that.
	It's hard when you're an incumbent to do that.
	I get it.
	But 2016, Trump, he made people dream.
	He really pushed the boundaries of what a political candidate is allowed to talk about.
	I think he could recapture that in a very, very compelling way in 2024.
unidentified		Charlie Kirk, future political consultant.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		It's been a pleasure talking to you, my friend.
		I will see you probably in, I sense it will be on the west coast of Florida.
		What do you think?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		West Coast of Florida is the place to be.
		My place in Florida will not be disclosed, but it's not too far from Rumble's headquarters, the heartbeat of the response to the Silicon Valley tyranny.
		So honored, Dave.
		Thank you.
		And check out my locals, everybody.
		It's going to be great.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		It's charliekirk.locals.com, right?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		See you, brother.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		See you soon.
unidentified		Thank you.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Joining me today is the founder of Turning Point USA and the host of the Charlie Kirk Show, as well as multiple time Rubin report guest Charlie Kirk.
		Charlie, how are you, my friend?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Dave, I'm doing great.
		Great to see you.
		Thank you for having me.
		And you've been so good to me and us throughout the years.
		So I want to make sure I express that gratitude and great to be back.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Now, Charlie, you sound a little dour or a little depressed or a little soft-spoken.
		Those were kind words, and I appreciate it.
		But what's going on here before people think something weird's happening?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I'm trying to audition for the NPR news hour.
		So I'm trying to, you know, change my vibe.
		You know, I've been on these campuses and I've been known to have a lot of energy and a lot of passion.
		I think it's time for Charlie Kirk 2.0, where it's more thoughtful and slow.
		Oh, kidding aside, Dave, I did seven events in Pennsylvania within 24 hours.
		And even for me, that was too much.
		I felt my voice was holding, it was holding, was holding.
		First time in my career, my voice just went out last Thursday, like out, and I just couldn't talk for literally three days.
		So I had to rest it for three days, which is awfully humbling.
		But it's actually a lot better right now.
		I'm able to have a conversation with you and be intelligible.
		So not quite yet recovered, but we're getting there.
		So if people grant me a little grace, it's not the NPR hour.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I was going to say something kind of funny about like a conservative or just relatively sane human being trying to talk with the cadence of an NPR host.
		It would sound pretty damn disturbing.
		I mean, that's the worst.
		Like, what is why do we start there?
		What is wrong with these people?
		And I'm talking about everyone besides us at this point.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, but you know what?
		I'm telling you, Dave, with the NPR voice, what's so frustrating is they're talking about such like hyper-aggressive topics in like this very muted way.
		Today on the NPR hour, we talk about how half the country should be exterminated from the face of the planet.
		And experts say it's good for the climate today on NPR.
		It's like, wait, what?
		I'm sorry.
		Did you just talk about like mass genocide in this like very muted, passive-aggressive voice?
		I think that's what bothers me the most about the NPR voice.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I always say under that very thin veneer of pleasantness, there is something very, very nasty with most of these people.
		But let's dive in.
		We've got about a half hour together.
		Obviously, a lot going on.
		You know, we're 30 plus, some odd days out from this election.
		Let me start with the most broad thing.
		I mean, obviously you're well within the Trump universe and helping fight on campuses and elsewhere.
		How are you feeling at this moment about the election?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I feel better than I did in 2020, for sure.
		I think Trump's in a much better spot.
		I feel better than even where we were in 2016.
		With that being said, given the environment, I think we should be feeling even better because this election really should not be competitive or close given the economy, given the southern border, given the kind of the status of how things are in the country, how people view how things are going in the country.
		Kamala Harris's campaign team is brilliant.
		She's receiving coaching very, very well.
		You know, Dave is someone who's brilliant in broadcasting.
		I'm sure you see how she constantly is uploading new one-liners and she's trying to de-emphasize the cackle and the laugh and try to turn into something that she isn't.
		But yes, as far as the map and what's going to matter, here's the good news, Dave.
		And I give you full credit for this.
		Florida is no longer a battleground state.
		So thank you, Dave.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Happy to help.
		It's my way of giving.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I give Dave 100% credit.
		It was a battleground state until the Rubin report moved down to Miami.
		But that's a big deal.
		In years past, Dave, we used to have to campaign in Florida and we used to have to do events.
		And Governor Ron DeSantis deserves a lot of credit for this from voter registration, being an effective governor.
		Democrats have given up on Florida.
		And so that allows us to better focus our resources.
		Ohio used to be a battleground state, Dave.
		Not anymore.
		Trump is up 11 in Ohio.
		That is gone.
		Iowa used to be a battleground state.
		Now, I'm doing this because in years past, we used to have to work our way up from, okay, got to win Iowa, got to win Ohio, then you got to win Florida, and then we can get into those next second and third tier threshold states.
		That is not the case this time.
		This time, we start from a far better place than we have in years past, where now North Carolina, we should win.
		It's a little shakier, I'll be honest with your audience, given some problems with Mark Robinson and just other factors.
		North Carolina is not in the best place that it should be, given other states.
		However, if Donald Trump wins, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, he's president of the United States.
		If you're telling me that Trump has to win three states, all three of which he's won in previous elections, one of which he won in 2020, and then the other he fell 10,000 votes short of, that's a great starting point.
		And we're not even getting into Wisconsin, which was 21,000 votes short in 2020, or Arizona, that was 10,000 votes short.
		And so it's a great map for Trump.
		What should happen is that it should break in Trump's favor somewhere around mid-October.
		However, we can't underestimate Kamala Harris and their team's ability to chase ballots, register voters, engage in early voting.
		And so I remain saying that this is a 50-50 election.
		I think Trump has a 50% chance of winning.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		That is a bold prediction, my friend.
		50%, Trump.
		50%, Harris.
		Pretty good.
		Let me ask you something that's actually a little trickier for guys like us to talk about and still be able to make a living, which is that I think a lot of people right now are worried that there are going to be some shenanigans.
		We don't have to relitigate 2020, but I think a lot of people are worried that it's going to be the day before the election.
		We're going to see weeks of massive Trump rallies.
		We've seen this kind of new coalition of RFK, Tulsi, Elon types come around.
		We're not seeing a lot of people break the other way, really.
		And everything is going to feel like Trump is going to win.
		And we're just going to wake up the next morning and he will not have won.
		How worried are you of that?
		That there's really no way, like I know, okay, we can all say 50-50 or whatever, but that there's really just no way to gauge these things properly anymore because we've all, because there is no mainstream that makes sense anymore.
		So we're all kind of off in our own little universe trying to just get a touch point that makes sense.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		It's an important point.
		I am worried about it.
		And this is where I'm different in the camp than some people.
		I think there's a limit to their cheating.
		I think like all things, there's only so much that they can cheat.
		For example, in the state of Florida, I think they would have loved to have Governor DeSantis not win in 2022.
		Well, he did by 20 points, okay?
		Meaning that there's a limit when you have enough public consensus and a good enough ground game.
		There's only so much the other time, the other side can do shenanigans or tomfoolery or whatever.
		That's number one.
		Number two, where we are emphasizing our focus on turning point action is the people who agree with us that do not vote.
		There are tens of millions of people that stay at home and decide not to participate and not to vote.
		And their ballots are never in the system.
		So we think the best remedy to a very broken system is driving turnout, is to say if we have enough of our people turn out in record numbers, then we're able to overcome that.
		But Dave, I don't want to sugarcoat it, and I don't want to mislead your audience.
		What you just articulated might happen.
		And I don't say that as a way to make you cynical.
		I say people, I say that to people so that you know what you're dealing with, number one.
		And number two, it should actually give you more reason and more urgency to vote.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		What are you seeing that has changed over the last couple of years on college campuses?
		You and I used to do a ton of events together, you know, seven, eight years ago.
		Our lives and businesses have gone in separate directions.
		So it's been a while that we've done something on stage together.
		But what are you seeing now that maybe we didn't see back then?
		Or is it crazier?
		Did any of the craziness go away?
		I mean, it seems crazier, but you're out there.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I will say this.
		I mean, the videos in the picture speak for themselves.
		And Dave, you remember the opposition.
		There's still a fair amount of opposition there.
		We just did an event at Penn State University.
		We do these prove-me-wrong events where we have people come up to the mic and the videos go super viral.
		We had 3,000 people show up.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		That was awesome.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		We'll throw some B-roll in so people can see while you're talking right now.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and that's no spin.
		That's no BS.
		That's not like a bunch of people from the local GOP meeting.
		And these are young students at a campus in Center College, Pennsylvania, similar type crowd at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
		We're going, Arizona State University, similar type deal.
		Here's the truth.
		Young ladies, super liberal, no doubt.
		Okay.
		Very, very liberal.
		Young men, most conservative they've been in 50 years and by far the most conservative I've seen them in the 12 years of doing this.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		What do you make of this new alliance that I mentioned earlier?
		This sort of RFK, Tulsi, Elon, I would say me, plenty of other people thing that has more come around.
		I don't think everyone is traditionally a conservative.
		And you and I used to joke for years, you'd always be saying, Dave, you're going to be the most hardcore conservative out of all of us by the end because you know what they are.
		But what do you make of this thing that's happening right now?
		Because, you know, to me, it's what America is all about.
		And that's really what Trump represents now.
		It disagrees.
		These people wildly disagree on abortion.
		They wildly disagree on foreign policy and a whole bunch of other stuff, but they love America.
		They love America and they love free speech.
		And to me, that is good enough.
		I can work with that.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, first of all, I think it's one of the most exciting underreported developments by the mainstream media.
		The media is being careful not to touch this because I think they know they'd make it even bigger if they gave any credence to it.
		And add to the list, Brett Weinstein.
		I mean, that's amazing.
		This guy is a liberal from Evergreen State University, and he's in the fight now.
		And so what is the through line here between Tulsi Gabbard, Bobby Kennedy, Elon Musk?
		Number one is that they have experienced, spent time with, fraternized with the left-wing blue beast, and they did not like what they've seen.
		All of them have a story of personal scorn that terrified them of what that thing is.
		And you too, right, Dave?
		I mean, you have your stories.
		You are way ahead of the curve.
		But for the record, Dave was like a decade ahead of everybody else.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I was so ahead of the curve, I was behind it.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I think that's where we're at right now.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Exactly.
		Yeah, it's all one big circle.
		Where Brett Weinstein, Evergreen State University, he was like, what is this?
		This is complete nonsense.
		Jordan Peterson, what happened with the forced pronoun stuff in Canada?
		Elon Musk, to a lesser extent, a personal story, but you could look at how his companies have been targeted, Twitter, free speech.
		It's only further brought him in that direction.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Tulsi Gabbard that's now a daughter or whatever you want to say about that.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that's pretty damn personal, but I get your point.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, for sure.
		Oh, no, that's exactly right.
		I mean, yeah, I totally forgot about that.
		You're exactly right.
		And then you have Tulsi Gabbard, co-chair of the DNC, who was the darling of DC until she disagreed with the Democrat Party on foreign policy, and she immediately became a pariah.
		It's like, we're not allowed to deal with you.
		Or how about Bobby Kennedy?
		Bobby Kennedy, who ran for the presidency as a Democrat, then an independent.
		They sue to try to keep him off the ballot and they sue to keep him on the ballot.
		Just this incredibly contradictory, non-principled Democrat party.
		And all of them kind of simultaneously were like, okay, wait a second.
		I'm not a conservative.
		I'm not a Republican, but I like free speech.
		And this open border thing is insane.
		And the government has way too much power that's merged with big corporations.
		And we all love the Constitution.
		Who's with me?
		And this kind of Avengers unity team started to organically come together.
		You see, Dave, there was no central casting of this.
		There was not some kind of casting director that was like, yeah, and then we'll bring Tulsi Gabbard.
		This all happened organically.
		It's a profoundly exciting and groundbreaking story, the 2024 election.
		2020 did not have a through line with this story.
		2016 did not have a subplot like this.
		This here is people that, I want you to think about it, a Kennedy, a Kennedy, who's the namesake of Bobby Kennedy, the co-chair of the DNC, Brett Weinstein, who was like Mr. Liberal Professor of the Year.
		And they all have their own personal story.
		But here's the thing.
		It's not just that they were, oh, I'm scorned.
		No, no, no.
		They extrapolated being like, whoa.
		If this happens to me and these people treated me this way, what am I dealing with with this big blue machine or team blue, if you will?
		And so combining forces is it's been amazing to see.
		I consider many of them friends.
		And Dave, you know, I'm very conservative, but I also love disagreements and I love agreement on the macro stuff and the micro stuff is not that interesting to me.
		And I think that's what makes the conservative movement a healthier movement and a more vibrant movement and a robust movement.
		And so if I think in some ways it is what you and I tried to demonstrate through unity campus work seven or eight years ago that has now manifested and crescendoed into the presidential election.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I should note that we're taping this in a couple days in advance, but this weekend that has just passed by the time you guys are seeing this, the Restore the Republic rally is taking place.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Charlie and I will both be there or were there in essence and we're going to have a whole bunch of interviews and I'm broadcasting live from there and there's some time shift disorder involved in all of this, but we'll have all of those videos up as well.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I'm careful the way I was talking about it.
		Thank you, Dave.
		I was like, I can see and it happened.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		I will see you in a few days.
		And also, I just saw you something like that.
		Let me ask you about the blue monster that you just mentioned or that blue machine or the system or the swamp, whatever you want to call it at this point.
		I am still, and you know I take August off, so I'm a little delayed, I guess, when it comes to the fall.
		But I'm still a little hung up on the coup thing that happened.
		The fact that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer got together clearly with Kamala, they made it very obvious to Joe that they were going to pull the 25th Amendment.
		And clearly, Jill and whoever else didn't have enough juice to fight it off.
		And that, and I guess the question I'm asking you is, are you still amazed that the machine can pull off these tricks?
		I mean, we don't talk about that.
		We don't talk about Trump assassination attempt one.
		We don't talk about assassination attempt two.
		That somehow, despite all of these people coming together and all the good stuff that you've just pointed out here, the machine finds a way.
		The House kind of always wins.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I am amazed by it.
		But what's more remarkable to me, Dave, is how they're able to quell rebellion and how they're able to keep any disagreement from bubbling up.
		That's what I find to be an interesting psychological mystery to me, where they're able Able to be like, okay, guys, we're the party of democracy.
		What we're going to do is put in a candidate with no votes.
		And if you disagree, we're going to destroy you.
		And everyone's like, cool.
		Yeah, absolutely.
		That sounds great.
		And again, this is why Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard and these people are affecting because it's completely insane.
		And it's so self-evidently bad for the country.
		So, yes, and I think that we have to be clear, though, that the Kamala Harris thing, again, the media has been such an enemy to the American people and so awful on the Kamala thing.
		This was probably a plan that was many months underway.
		It was probably started around April or May or earlier.
		The summer debate when they scheduled with Joe Biden was probably a sabotage to try to get Joe Biden either that will search.
		Yeah, please, Dave, interject.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me pause you there for a second.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Because do you think in some because I agree with you on that, actually, but my question is, do you think maybe Trump fell in their trap on that one in that he was willing to do the debate so early so it gave them the chance for this thing to swap?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Do I wish that Trump would not have done the debate?
		Yes.
		I think because in some ways the trend was going so well for us.
		But you look at it from Trump's perspective.
		It's that he's the guy that's like there will be no fight he'll say no to, especially against Biden.
		Very personal.
		You have four years of pent up, I should be president and you shouldn't be, right?
		And understand that not all the data before the debate was nearly as decisive that Trump was going to win.
		There were polls that showed Biden up.
		So it was still a little bit of a murky situation, right?
		But looking back at it, we're like, man, we gave the coup plotters the forcing function that they needed.
unidentified		Right.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		And with that being said, I still think we can beat Kamala and we might.
		So I don't want to, you know, complain all day long.
		But looking back, if a candidate who's not doing great wants a summer debate, we should probably put this in like our political strategy book for the next hundred years so our grandkids can learn this.
unidentified		Right.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Don't give them.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Don't give them that.
unidentified		Yeah.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So again, I'm not blaming Trump.
		He's a friend.
		Like, I get it.
		I understand the calculus.
		But I think we can look back, we can say, when they're not doing well, don't debate in June.
		Yeah.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Right.
		I get it.
		I get it.
		It was very different at the time.
		I'm just saying in retrospect.
		And look, hopefully he wins and it becomes largely irrelevant.
unidentified		So.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		No, yeah.
		But looking, again, looking at it now, we're like, man, that was the beginning of the end.
		And they were able to then put Kamala in.
		It's very clear that all these slogans, all these one-liners were workshopped ahead of time, you know, a broad new future on the camp, all this crap, right?
		That she didn't just all of a sudden become a candidate and had all this branding ready to go out of nowhere.
		This was definitely planned behind the scenes.
		Joe Biden fought it, and they were like, okay, old man, good luck.
		And the one thing that actually screwed up the timing was the Trump assassination attempt, screwed it up a little bit, but they still went through with it amazingly.
		That's one of the reasons why they had to memory hole that assassination attempt so quickly is they wanted to get the news cycle onto Kamala.
		But understand what happened within one week.
		Historians will write this down as one of the most interesting eight days never reported by a media.
		No one was like, oh, yeah, that's interesting how that'll happen.
		Trump gets shot.
		Trump becomes the nominee.
		Kamala becomes the nominee.
		Eight days.
		So you have a shooting, a convention, and a switch, and no one asked the question, like, what the hell just happened here?
		Like, who's in charge?
		And by the way, Dave, can somebody explain to me, was there like a Zoom call where like Kamala Harris officially became the nominee?
		Was there like a text message or like Charlie?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		It was very grassroots.
		I've been told it was a grassroots effort to install her with no votes.
		Please don't ask any more questions.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		No, I just, I want to know, at least for like future planning, how did this work?
		It was like a Slack channel or like no one has ever explained.
		It's just like, oh, no, all the delegates pledged support for her.
		No, I got that.
		I know.
		But was there ever like a sequence?
		And it's chilling, Dave, how millions of Americans just bought it.
		They were cool with it.
		Like, yeah, the person that didn't even make it to Iowa in our party back in 2020 is now the most popular person ever.
		But hey, that's the party of democracy.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Well, what does that tell you about the modern Democrat Party?
		Because, you know, you know my feelings about the word liberal and I can't really call myself a liberal, not because I am not in some old school sense, but because the word has just been so mucked up, it doesn't fly for me anymore.
		It's just not worth the explanation.
		But what does that tell you about the sort of general state of the average Democrat voter that they sort of like being spit on in the face, actually?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		It's a couple things.
		I don't think it's hard to overstate how much they hate Trump and what deals they're willing to cut in their own mind and in their politics to get rid of Trump.
		I think that's a big part of it.
		And I think they hate Trump so much that they're willing to privately say, we got to get rid of Trump.
		Let's just put our democracy stuff aside.
		I really think that's a core piece of this.
		The second piece, though, is that the Democrat Party for the last 30, like 20 years post-Obama has been more like an oligarchy.
		The country runs more like an oligarchy.
		The Democrat Party absolutely runs like an oligarchy.
		Now, mind you, the Republican Party used to run like an oligarchy.
		And the 2016 race was supposed to be Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush.
		That's what the race was supposed to be.
		Two families that have ruled before with their own fiefdoms.
		They agree on everything except corporate tax cuts.
		That's it, right?
		Like the whole election would have been about like corporate tax rates and, I don't know, like school choice or something.
		Okay, great.
		Like that would have been the whole election.
		And that way, no matter who wins, D.C. wins.
		Trump blew that up and took over the Republican Party and kicked the Plutocrats out.
		And many of them went into the Democrat Party.
		Leon Panetta, Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney.
		They're now in the Democrat Party.
		They helped run the Democrat Party.
		Literally, it's not an exaggeration.
		And so the average Democrat voter is possessed by the hatred of Trump.
		And the rulers and the leaders, they're like, hey, instead of having to deal with primaries, we just call the shots.
		And an oligarchy is the ruling of the few that are untouchable.
		And so it's a very chilling development.
		It is.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Let's dive into a couple of the issues because you and I, although politically we've definitely come closer over the years since we first met, we don't agree on everything, which is completely fine.
		And I don't want to do a back and forth on who's right about the issues, but I want to talk about abortion and sort of how it might hurt.
		Well, you might argue it would help Trump in this election.
		I, although I consider myself begrudgingly pro-choice and we can pick what that means, whether it's 12 or 14 weeks or whatever, here in Florida, we have six, obviously.
		I was for the reversal of Roe v.
		Wade because abortion obviously is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.
		However, it seems to me this is always going to be a loser for Republicans.
		Also, not just because of the optics exactly as much as the Democrats are just going to lie about the Republican position on it all the time.
		For example, at the debate that he's for a national abortion ban and no matter how many times he says he's not for it in that first debate with Biden, I thought that was the best three minutes he's maybe ever given politically to explain himself and then to say, oh, and I don't even know if this is going to help me electorally.
		So my question to you is not to debate abortion, rather than do you, is this the great card they have up their sleeve always to get voter turnout at the last second?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		No, for sure.
		It's a great question.
		And you know me, I'm a pro-life absolutist and totally respect disagreements on the issue because most of the country is not where I'm at.
		And you got to be realistic.
		Yes, to answer your question first, politically and then morally are two different issues the way I look at it.
		Because as a spokesperson, as an advocate, when I'm on campus, I don't move an inch on the moral topic.
		I'm not running for office.
		And I try to make arguments that way.
		Politically, you have to win elections, and you have to try to win elections by persuading a majority of people in states to agree with you.
		And the majority of the country is not even close to where I am on abortion.
		And the only thing I would push back on, you said it's always going to be a loser.
		I don't know if always is.
		Maybe the country will become more pro-life.
		Maybe people like me will be successful.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		I can grant it.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Let's say in the next decade or so, something like that.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Currently, it is a political problem for Republicans for many different reasons.
		And the first reason is that people who call themselves pro-life are not actually as pro-life as I am.
		They're like, well, I'm pro-life, which means like abortion the first trimester.
		And I'm like, okay, well, we have different definitions of what pro-life is.
		Let me say this, though, is that if Kamala Harris wins, she said she's going to use the filibuster to get rid of any state sovereignty on this issue and nationalize Roe versus Wade.
		You disagree with that.
		I disagree with that.
		And so now we agree that that is like nationalized abortion zealotry that has no space at all in our country.
		And it would reverse a lot of pro-life momentum that I care deeply about.
		Number two, which is the pro-life infrastructure.
		Kamala Harris as Attorney General, she used the California Attorney General's office to go after David DeLeiden, to go after journalists, to go after pregnancy resource centers.
		Kamala Harris would use the IRS and the Department of Justice to go after pro-life organizations, nonprofits, 501c3s, and companies just because they would be spreading medical disinformation.
		The final point, though, that I'll say this is that Trump's in a very difficult position in the sense where he delivered a reversal of Roe versus Wade.
		The pro-life movement largely is now not sure what to do about that, to be perfectly honest.
		You know, do you run on a national ban?
		Do you run on a state type thing?
		I have my own opinions, none of which have been listened to or kind of followed and not that applicable.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		For the record, I think Trump's played it perfectly.
		I think Trump's messaging on this has been absolutely perfect.
		I don't know that it will get more votes, but I think it's absolutely nothing.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't hear it perfect.
		I would say he should not say reproductive freedom.
		I don't think that's smart to use left-wing.
		There was one truth social where he said that, and I told him that privately.
		And I think he received that.
		However, given the circumstance, I would agree he's been very prudent in how he's navigated this.
		And I want everyone who's pro-life to understand this as well, that Donald Trump very well could have just said, forget all of you guys.
		I'm just going to be, you know, I'm going to say that I believe in 12 weeks nationally and just get rid of the issue.
		And instead, he says, look, we brought it back to the states.
		We reversed Roe versus Wade.
		And I agree with you.
		His abortion answer with Biden was the best I've ever seen.
		And he talked about late-term abortion.
		And I was like, man, if we could just have that kind of on repeat.
		And so let me just finish with this, which is that those of us that are pro-life are never going to stop advocating for the unborn, advocating for this obviously deeply important moral topic.
		But I also don't live on fantasy land in politics, and I don't act as if it's a political winner when currently it's not.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Let me ask you another hot one, which is that the Democrats, and I guess this goes to how confused they are about almost all the issues.
		When it comes to foreign policy, they are obsessively pro-war as it pertains to Ukraine, Russia, even though Putin's got nukes, no defense of Putin, just a reality.
		And they're wildly anti-Israel.
		How do you put these two things together?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, let's just be honest, there's significant Jew hatred in the base of the Democrat Party.
		Both movements have anti-Semitism.
		The Democrat Party has it like in the fibers of their party.
		And I have the best piece of evidence for this that no one can refute.
		Josh Shapiro should have been the vice presidential nominee.
		Pennsylvania might go to Trump, and I'm not saying this as like some sort of broad prediction.
		Just look at all the numbers on the ground and the chatter.
		And yet you have this very popular governor with a sizable political operation who just has one problem, Dave.
		He's a Jew.
		Well, not a problem for me or you, but like for the Democrats, they're like, there's no way that they wanted to turn Chicago into a race riot about what's happening in Israel.
		That's a big problem.
		That was an undercovered story that someone was actively discriminated against from becoming a vice presidential nominee simply because he was Jewish.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		You know, Tony, you find it interesting.
		He was my choice.
		When I left to go off the grid for August, one of the last things I said, I was like, I'll make one prediction.
		It's going to be Josh Shapiro.
		And I'm pretty sure I said it on air, if not on a backstage show or whatever.
		Like the only issue would be that they don't want a Jew.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		For sure.
		Yeah.
		And again, let's just repeat this, that he was object.
		He would right now be making Pennsylvania a far more competitive state, therefore massively increasing Kamala Harris's odds.
		When they chose this buffoon from Minnesota, Tim Walls, I just, I was like, thank you, I guess.
		So that's number one.
		Number two, though, is that the base base of the Democrat Party, they view Israel as a mistake.
		We view Israel as a miracle.
		Big difference.
		We view Israel as the hero's triumph of people that were significantly abused, murdered, attempted to be genocided, and were able to create something basically an oasis in the desert, a place where common law and separation of powers and individual liberty and private property rights were able to flourish in a sea of totalitarianism.
		They view Israel as a colonialist project that stole land from indigenous people.
		You've heard all the nonsense, right?
		So it goes back.
		They hate Israel for very similar reasons why they hate the West.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		So what do you do with that?
		What do you do with that?
		That's one of the things that I'm extremely worried about right now.
		I'm sure you're playing them on your show too.
		But almost every day I can show you a video of a now a Hezbollah flag in New York City and a riot or what's happening in Chicago or San Francisco or Detroit on top of the homelessness and everything else.
		What I'm majorly worried about outside of like the pure political part of all of this is how long can a Western society, a multicultural society last when on any given day in any major city, you can have terrorist supporters rampaging through the streets.
		Like how long do you think that can work?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Well, not much longer.
		I mean, look at the United Kingdom.
		It's a husk of its former self.
		There's a couple components here.
		Number one, not all cultures are equal.
		And I say that definitively and clearly, and it drives people nuts.
		I'm sorry that Mideastern Muslim totalitarianism is not equal to Western civilization.
		It's just not.
		The people are equal, made in the image of God's economy.
		Let me be very clear.
		This is not that some people are substandard or anything, not even close.
		Their worldview is not equal to ours.
		But number two, what you're articulating, Dave, is an immigration problem.
		And to President Trump's great credit, this is his issue where he's the strongest.
		We need to have mass deportations for lots of people, including anti-Western American flag-burner newcomers that come to the country at our request.
		They come to the country with our invitation, and they act in such a hostile and bitter way.
		No more.
		They should be deported from the nation, and they should not be here any longer because we are inviting our own demise.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Charlie, there's literally a hundred other things that I could do with you right now, but I'm going to let you save your voice so that you can speak at the event that we are about to go to.
		That if you're watching this now, we just did.
		It'll be good to see.
		It'll be good to see in real life.
		My last question is the most annoying one.
		You know what it is.
		Who's going to win the election?
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		Got a coin flip it.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Come on, come on.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼		Come on.
charlie kirk ▲ ● ▼		That's it.
		I have no idea.
		All I know is what I'm going to do, and I'm working as hard as I possibly can.
		Dave, you know, I don't see a coin.
		I do not know.
		I can make great arguments for Kamala, great arguments for Trump.
		It's as 50-50 as I've ever seen it.

▲