Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 18, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:16:59

Interview with Presidential Democrat Candidate Jason Palmer - Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Violated the judge's gag order on mentions and attacks of jurors in his case.
	On Donald Trump's social media website tonight, Donald Trump reposted something posted by the 8 p.m. host on Fox, Jesse Waters.
	Jesse Waters says they are catching undercover liberal activists.
	Lying to the judge in order to get on the Trump jury.
	And there's Donald Trump himself posting that on social media tonight, posting it for the jurors in his case to see, calling them liberal activists and liars.
	Donald Trump calling his jurors who have already been seated liars because what Jesse Waters is referring to there are the jurors, the seven.
	Who have already been officially seated on that jury.
	That's who he's referring to.
	Then he's saying that they have lied their way onto the jury.
	Donald Trump is endorsing that.
	Those words are the same as Donald Trump writing them himself.
	This is a severe test now of what Judge Juan Mershon is...
	By quoting a mainstream media news outlet, he's violating the gag order.
	It's actually tremendously depressing because what we're witnessing is normalizing, normalizing of absolute...
	Absolute tyranny.
	There's no other way to describe it.
	Now, I didn't want to play that because that's going to get me enraged, but this is not an ordinary Viva show.
	So I might come back to that either tomorrow or do a vlog on that later tonight or over the weekend.
	I got the backdrop.
	You may or may not have heard of him, but I liked in an interview that he gave, he said, it's not because you've never heard of me that I'm not known.
	Jason Palmer, who was, I don't know, I think he's formally conceded to Joe Biden for the Democrat presidential nominee.
	But was running against him, but still might be running against him because I still have my theories as to where Joe Biden may or may not be.
	On what ticket Joe Biden may or may not be come the months ahead, Jason Palmer actually destroyed Joe Biden's clean sweep of the electoral votes by getting the, what was it, four electoral votes coming out of American Samoa.
	And based on some interviews that I've been hearing, I might be mispronouncing Samoa and it might be Samoa.
	You may not think that this is going to be interesting.
	Some of you might be tearing your hair out.
	I know my audience demographic, and you might be tearing your hair out.
	But I think this is going to be amazingly fascinating.
	I reached out to Jason via Twitter, and he agreed to come on.
	I also gave him full disclaimer.
	I don't think I'm bad, but people think I'm bad, so be forewarned if you decide to come on.
	And he agreed to come on.
	So that being said, full credit to Jason Palmer.
	I got my questions, and I've got a lot of them.
	I can't show them.
	I got one full page of questions.
	And Jason agreed to do this.
	So it's fantastic.
	It's fantastic openness.
	We're going to have a good discussion.
	I'm going to be nice, but I'm going to be direct.
	Jason, coming in hot in 3, 2, 1. Sir, how goes the battle?
	Hey, thanks for having me on.
	And I actually am a big believer in letting everybody, regardless of your political affiliation or beliefs, speak up for what you believe in.
	So I actually am glad to be here.
	I'm glad to talk about any topic.
	Well, you say that until you get cancelled by the mob come Monday morning.
	I'm joking.
	Okay, I'm joking.
	But Jason, we'll get into all of it, because I mean, like, bottom line, it's not often that I get, I don't know if you represent the Democrat Party, you're certainly part of it, you have some political history.
	It's not often I get someone on who I can finally ask the questions to.
	Not in a trolling manner like on Twitter or not in a manner where I know no one's going to answer.
	Well, let me just tell you to that question, Nick, that's kind of a question.
	I have endorsed Joe Biden as the candidate that I support for president now.
	That was just earlier this week.
	But I am still an outsider.
	I'm still, you know, I wear my purple tie.
	Usually today I have a purple shirt on because I really do think we need to move the country back to common sense, back to the center.
	And, you know, I'm definitely not a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.
	I'm one of the members of the Democratic tribe, which actually has a lot of different voices in it.
	Well, I was going to get there, but I mean, maybe I'll just ask it right off the bat.
	Do you see yourself as more center than Joe Biden or more progressive than Joe Biden?
	You know, that's a really hard one, actually, because I think what Joe is trying to do in Israel and Gaza, I'm a Quaker by background, and I believe we should always be pushing for peace.
	We should try to figure out a way to reduce the loss of life.
	And so some people would say that I'm more to the left of Joe Biden on Israel and Gaza, even though I'm a staunch advocate for Israel existing, just not doing what they're doing to the people in Gaza.
	Whereas I'm much more capitalist.
	I've been an investor in 30 companies.
	I've started four companies.
	I believe in what's called conscious capitalism, which is a whole movement that I'm part of that now represents about a trillion dollars out of the hundred trillion dollar global economy.
	And so people who have known me a long time say, Jason, you're a Republican.
	I'm like, no, I'm not.
	I just believe in capitalism.
	And actually, I've seen how capitalism has raised so many people out of poverty the whole world over.
	70% of jobs come from small businesses.
	I'm a huge fan of small businesses.
	But when I talk about that, or I talk about balancing the budget, people think I sound Republican.
	Well, we're going to get into the obvious question there is going to be immigration issues in terms of balancing a budget or bankrupting a nation.
	But just before we even get there, 30,000-foot overview.
	You want American Samoa, but you're not from American Samoa.
	You're born in Maryland?
	I was born in Maryland, but I grew up most of my life in upstate New York.
	I went to the school at the University of Virginia, and I have never been to American Samoa.
	That's how you pronounce it, Samoa.
	It's very hard for people here on the mainland to pronounce it for some reason, but the American Samoans are okay with the fact we've been mispronouncing it for literally 100 years.
	We've been mispronouncing it.
	They should have put an H in there.
	That way I would have known.
	We'll get into your tech stuff in a bit, because you're known in the tech world.
	You've been a Democrat your whole life?
	Not my whole life.
	I've been a Democrat most of my life.
	I've been a registered independent in the past, but that was more than 15 years ago.
	In fact, when I was in my 20s, I actually considered myself libertarian for a while.
	So I have evolved over time, and that's probably part of why I voted for Larry Hogan for governor.
	In Maryland, he's a Republican.
	You know, I voted for Bill Clinton.
	I voted for Barack Obama.
	I voted for Joe Biden.
	Most of my voting history, probably two-thirds to three-quarters, is voting for Democrats.
	But I always think people should be discerning and look for who they think is the best candidate.
	And that means sometimes you're going to vote for a different party.
	Well, I've got to ask you this.
	It might be the obvious question, but if the vote is held tomorrow, you're voting for Joe Biden over Donald Trump, if those are the two candidates?
	That's correct.
	I would enthusiastically vote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump.
	That might be the point at which people are going to question your sanity, but we'll back it up.
	When did you...
	You're a registered Democrat?
	I presume you have to be if you're running for the...
	You do have to be a registered Democrat, but I've been a registered Democrat for about 15 years now.
	Well, I'll ask the obvious question.
	I mean, I know what I've seen as a Canadian.
	I'm born and raised in Canada, live in Florida now because Canada's gone full commie.
	From what I've seen of the Democrat Party, they have gone absolutely...
	Batshit crazy.
	And pulling so far to the left, they call it progressivism, and I call it regressivism.
	Have you seen a similar extremification, if that's not a word I'll make it one, of the Democrat Party over the last 15 years?
	I've seen an extremification in the media that's being painted on both parties.
	So I actually believe 80% of Americans and 80% of the people in Congress are purple.
	And that's why I wear a purple tie.
	And we actually believe in common sense positions.
	If we can work together to solve problems, we can get them done.
	Very quickly.
	And what's happening is the liberal media is painting the 10% of Republicans who are kind of crazy and fringy as the core of the Republican Party, when in fact, they're not the core of the Republican Party.
	And the same thing is happening with the 10% on the Democratic side, who actually aren't the core of that party either, but they get played up on the media all the time.
	And everybody thinks, oh, these are representative of the Democratic Party, when in fact...
	I'm probably pretty close to the middle of the Democratic Party, but that might be shocking to your listeners.
	Well, it's going to be shocking only in terms of saying that you'd vote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump, but that's not a loaded question.
	It's a foregone conclusion from your perspective.
	The litmus test issues and how the Democrats...
	I just want to jump in and say, you know, I like Nikki Haley a lot, met her a good amount when I was on the campaign trail.
	And, you know, I would have voted for Gretchen Whitmer or Jared Polis over Joe Biden if they were options in this election, but they didn't run in this election.
	So then you're describing a vote blue no matter who because, you know, anybody but Trump type thing.
	I'm not quite anybody but Trump.
	If it was Elizabeth Warren versus Donald Trump, that would be a very tough call for me that I can't even decide what I would do.
	Because she seems very anti-capitalism.
	And I believe getting the right understanding of capitalism in our country is really important.
	And she just seems so anti-capitalism.
	I'm not sure I could ever vote for Elizabeth Warren.
	I hope Elizabeth...
	I was just giving Elizabeth Warren a hard time on Twitter today.
	And that was actually the video I was going to start with.
	Her talking about...
	The green chats on iPhones are ruining relationships.
	I'm like, you defamed a child and never apologized.
	But some people are going to say, look, you vote for Nikki Haley, that only confirms that Nikki Haley was the Democrat of the GOP candidates.
	A warmonger that many people feel would have been the worst possible candidate, but explains why she won.
	Where did she win?
	She won Vermont?
	She won Vermont and Washington, D.C. She won the most Democrat places on Earth because the only people voting for her were Democrats.
	First question.
	You said the Democrat Party has not gone batshit crazy.
	Immigration.
	Not the whole party.
	Well, let's say the vocal active parts of the party.
	There's no true Scotsman fallacy at some point.
	You have to say, okay, that's a bad Scotsman.
	Immigration.
	Is the border a crisis currently?
	Yes or no?
	Yes.
	In fact, I wrote a 10-page white paper about how we need to resolve our immigration crisis in four parts.
	But go ahead.
	Keep going.
	Actually, I kind of want to hear that, but let me ask the precursor.
	When did it become a crisis?
	Well, the border has been a crisis for approximately 10 years, but it's been getting worse over the last few years.
	And in part, that's because we have rolled back some executive orders that were in place during the Trump administration that we should have evolved, but not rolled back.
	And at this point, most people in Central America believe that if you can get to the border and you can get over to the border, then you'll be set free on parole and you'll have to wait two or three years for your trial.
	And basically, you can come into the country.
	And that's a real problem.
	We actually need to resolve the issue at the border.
	And one of the four parts in my 10-page plan is actually to make it so that we have a surge in border judges.
	Right now, we have plenty of border agents on the border.
	That's why we have videos of everything and why they're capturing so many people.
	But they don't have a way to process all those people.
	So they need about a thousand border judges.
	There needs to be an executive order where everybody that comes in within 30 to 90 days, you get seen by that judge and you get adjudicated and they make a decision.
	Are you here legitimately as a refugee?
	Yes or no. 90% of people would be sent home because they're not legitimately here as a refugee.
	Now, those people, we should also give them a chance to participate in a guest worker program because there are a lot of farming areas that actually want to hire these people for one-year or two-year tours of duty.
	They wouldn't get green cards.
	They wouldn't become citizens, but they could make money and help on farms and with other businesses.
	But then you go back to your home country.
	It's just a one- or two-year tour of duty.
	And then I could keep going with three and four, but that's what we need to do in the border, is surge judges and be sending about 90% of the people back to their home country because they're not here as legitimate refugees.
	But Jason, this is the question, I don't know to what degree you can represent the Democrat Party or speak for and on behalf of.
	No, no, I speak for Jason Palmer.
	I'll tell you, I'm not the Democratic mouthpiece.
	Because you literally have the Democratic Party saying, There's no such thing as illegal.
	They object to the term.
	I mean, I've lived through the bastardization, the Orwellian bastardization of language, where illegal aliens went to undocumented migrants, and then it went to...
	I mean, I don't even know what they call them now, but it's almost...
	Undocumented.
	Undocumented is still the preferred term.
	And I guess what I would say there is, most recently, you know this, Joe Biden and the Democrats actually proposed an immigration reform that was going to pass through the Senate, was going to pass through the House, that would have actually resolved a lot of these issues at the border.
	It didn't have all the things I was asking for in my white paper, but it was about 80%.
	And then Trump spoke up and said, don't pass that.
	I need immigration to be a big issue this year.
	I want there to be problems at the border.
	He said that legitimately.
	And so right now, this issue is very confused as to who's really responsible anymore.
	Is it Trump because he told the Republicans in the House not to pass it?
	Or is it Biden's?
	I think he gave the issue back, honestly.
	Jason, first of all, I mean, some people are screaming in the chat.
	Biden rolled back what Trump was trying to do to solidify the border, to secure the border.
	When Trump said that there was a crisis at the border, he was called a racist for doing it by the same Democrats who...
	As you're saying now, eight years later, say it's a crisis because they were basically invited.
	They were basically assured.
	All you have to do is cry asylum and you'll get in, even though, as you're saying, you won't hear AOC say it.
	90% of them are not legitimate.
	I mean, I'd say it's 95 plus.
	But what you're describing tacitly is a Democrat party that has gone absolutely insane.
	Exacerbated the crisis.
	And if you're talking about the border bill, the bipartisan border bill, which Trump shot down, or he's being blamed for having shot down?
	Yeah, he's being blamed for shitting it down because he shot it down.
	Well, but you're a smart man, and I'm going to not take for granted if you don't know what's in that bill.
	You are aware that that bill basically guaranteed no less than or up to 5,000 illegal immigrants crossing the border a day, but only from contiguous continents?
	Well, that's why I said it's only about 80% of what I have in my plan is in that bill.
	I do think, even if Trump hadn't spoken up, there was still a good one to two weeks of important negotiation that needed to happen there to get Republicans on board.
	A lot of Republicans didn't like the bill in its current form, and we don't know what would happen.
	That 5,000 clause that you're talking about, that should be steered down to about 1,000 per day maximum.
	This is going to be a theme that's going to come up, and it's something that I've discovered over time, that it really genuinely seems that negotiating with Democrats, and not you, and this is not an attack on you, it's certainly a critique of the party, it's like negotiating with terrorists.
	And they come in and they say, first of all, 5,000 or up to 5,000 illegal immigrants a day is like 1.8 million a year.
	That's an overt sabotage of a nation.
	And to even say, if the argument's going to be, well, you've got to ask for 5,000 to agree to 1,000, how about zero?
	Like, that is a sabotaged bill from the get-go, or at the very worst, deliberate Trojan horse set up by the Democrats, arguably so they can secure votes in the future.
	I mean, that's enough for me to say I'm never negotiating with you ever again if we were two lawyers doing this.
	I mean, how would you respond to that?
	Overall, I would say you should never call the other side in a negotiation a terrorist if you want to try to get to common ground.
	And I'm all about common ground.
	And this is a hot...
	Button item that you're bringing up there.
	So I would gladly steer it down to zero just to show a little bit of compromisability here.
	If we could simultaneously give the dreamers a three-year or four-year path to citizenship.
	Dreamers are people who've been here under DACA for as long as 10, 15, 20 years.
	They've actually grown up in this country.
	They never even lived in another country.
	They speak English.
	They basically are citizens except in everything but name.
	And I would gladly tweak that border bill in almost any way needed to get Republicans on board so that I could get a path, a certainty path to citizenship for the Dreamers.
	That's my number one thing.
	When they teach you negotiation...
	In business school, I went to Harvard Business School.
	One of the first things you do is you say, "What is your top priority?
	What's your second priority?
	What's your third priority?" Number one priority for me when it comes to immigration is I want a path to citizenship.
	For dreamers, and that's because immigrants have been so important to our country.
	When Ronald Reagan left the White House at the end of his eight years, his last speech was about how immigration is so important to our country.
	You could go to live in Germany, you could live there your whole life, but you're never going to become a German.
	You could do the same in Japan, you'll never be Japanese.
	But if you come here, you believe in our ideals, you commit to our ethics and our credo here in America, you can become an American.
	And immigrants are some of the most...
	American people I know, legal immigrants, I should add.
	And the Dreamers are basically kind of in this legal limbo where we need to give them a path to citizenship.
	And it's totally different than the people who are crossing the border who need to be sent back because they're not coming here legally.
	Well, I know I'm very much aware of calling someone or suggesting that someone is employing terroristic tactics.
	It's not a good negotiation tactic.
	Wow, I got you to back down on that.
	Oh no, I'm not backing down.
	I'm doubling down because I'm going to say that when people...
	I agree.
	But what do you call people who are basically saying, look, I want to get to my dreamers being recognized and so what I'm going to do is flood the nation with...
	Military-aged men incessantly, until you can see my point, I'm going to burn the country down.
	I mean, it's an open invasion.
	And I know people don't like that word, or at least some Democrats don't.
	I don't know how many tens of millions have come in since Joe Biden has taken office.
	We're somewhere around 15 million immigrants who are undocumented.
	15 million illegal immigrants, aliens, who have not been vetted whatsoever.
	What's even crazier is they've been very vetted.
	Many of these people have jobs and are paying taxes and are in the system with a trial date in 2024 or 2025.
	Part of the reason we know there are 15 million is they've registered for driver's licenses.
	They're paying taxes.
	They're everywhere.
	They're working for American companies.
	So it's this very weird thing where we...
	We haven't upgraded our immigration laws since the 1980s, and we really should get people like you and me in the room, hammer it out.
	I'm going to have to compromise some on the border.
	You're going to have to compromise some on DREAMers.
	We probably all agree.
	like my number four thing, which is actually the most important thing in my immigration plan is we should have a points-based system for who gets in legally.
	This is what they have in Australia and Canada.
	You probably know about that.
	Yes, it's called being a Canadian.
	Jason, that is literally racism.
	I mean, that's literally been called a racist policy.
	I don't believe that's racist at all.
	As long as the merit things we're looking at are, do these people have the skills that are needed for open jobs?
	We're short on nurses.
	We're short on doctors.
	We're short on PhD scientists in artificial intelligence.
	You know, Albert Einstein was an immigrant.
	And part of the reason why we got so many of those great immigrants from Germany, mostly Jewish immigrants from Germany, is because we had an open policy that was based on a meritocracy, the people that could help us from a scientist.
	We should have a similar thing like that.
	If you speak English, you would get extra points in the Jason Palmer program because English is very important to your economic success here in America.
	You actually would get some points for speaking Spanish, too, because there are enough Americans that speak Spanish that that actually helps you economically as well.
	But when you don't speak any English at all, that would be a demerit against you, because then it's going to be very difficult for you to get a job and sustain yourself here.
	You know, and that's controversial to my friends on the Democratic side.
	They think, no, no, no, you shouldn't give people points for whether they speak the language or not.
	There's a lot of evidence that says that increases your chance of success.
	It's intuitive, but Jason, I was going to make the joke in the chat, but I don't want you to think I'm making a joke and not saying, you're totally getting cancelled.
	To say that it should be skill-based is the most common sense thing, and that's called racism.
	By the way, I'm going to get back to another part of that border bill in a second.
	I don't believe that's racism.
	I think that's common sense, to be honest with you.
	And now going back to the other issue about vetting them, of the 15 million illegal, I'll use the term, I know you don't approve of it, and I will agree to disagree on that.
	Of the 15 million illegals over the last four years, three and a half, how many do you think have been vetted?
	What percentage?
	That would honestly be a guess, because there hasn't been anything really comprehensive published in about three years, but I'd say 75% are in the system somewhere, either because they were caught by border agents, And then process and have a date that they need to come back for a court.
	Or they've got a driver's license.
	But they're not on the same system, necessarily, which is why it's so difficult to get this figured out.
	So I'll operate on the most favorable interpretation, which will be your estimate.
	Say 75%.
	That's 25% of 15 million.
	That's 2.5.
	That's 3.75 million people who have not been vetted in any way, shape, or form.
	Military-age men.
	At best, according to your most favorable interpretation.
	Hold on.
	You tweaked that a little bit.
	I was saying in the last three years, I'd say only 75% are in the system somewhere.
	But the 15 million has accumulated over the last 20 years.
	And 95% 98% of the people who came 15 years ago at this point are in the system.
	They've gotten a driver's license.
	They've had a job.
	They might even have a social security number at this point.
	I'm going to ask the chat to tell me how many illegals have come in under Joe Biden because I think that number is around 15 million.
	Am I wrong?
	It probably is in the 2, 4, 6, 8. It's about 7 to 9 million.
	So let's just even say then.
	I think it's more than that.
	But then take my number down a bit.
	You've got a million plus.
	No verification whatsoever, even assuming any verification can be had when they purportedly are asylum seekers coming from collapsed countries and have questionable identification cards, if any.
	That's a million plus, at the very, very least, of fighting aged men coming in and disappearing.
	But you need, because you're calling them fighting aged men.
	Half of them are women, half of them are men, on all the stats that I've seen.
	They're not here as an invasion.
	They're here for economic reasons.
	All the surveys show that 95% of the people are coming here for economic reasons.
	And maybe 5% are coming to accept against persecution in their country.
	And that's especially people from Venezuela, Guatemala, China, etc.
	But they're coming here for economic reasons.
	They think they can get a better job here.
	They care of their family.
	They're not here to...
	They're not here to fight Americans.
	They're not here as an invasion.
	They're here to make money.
	That's one point which everyone would then concede, or at least the right would say, yes, they're not asylum seekers.
	They're economic, illegal migrants that have no business cutting in line at best.
	And at worst...
	And in the point system that I'm proposing, they would get a demerit, maybe even a big demerit, for coming across the border illegally.
	You wouldn't get sent to the back of the line, but you would get a negative number of points for crossing the border illegally and trying to come here.
	We should just...
	It's sort of like Republicans...
	We believe in human nature, that people are trying to make it better for themselves and their family.
	And that's what immigrants are trying to do.
	It's a very incentive-based approach.
	And so we need to make sure the incentives are not lined up to encourage people to cross the border.
	You should get a negative demerits for that, a penalty, and then sent back to your home country.
	Well, I mean, it's interesting.
	I just don't think the Democrat Party is saying anything along these lines.
	I think some of your numbers, I would disagree with your numbers, but I could even grant you your numbers and then say that's still a massive problem.
	And almost like we're going to burn the house down if you don't give us what we want.
	And I call that terrorist negotiation tactics.
	But set that aside.
	I don't expect you to agree with me on that.
	The border bill.
	We're talking about the same border bill that had another $60 billion for Ukraine, $15 million for Israel, however many billion for humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
	That was the same bill?
	That Trump killed?
	Well, he specifically killed the border compromise because, as you know, And we're going to find out on Saturday, or maybe even sooner, many Republicans are opposed to more aid to Ukraine.
	Many Republicans are opposed to more aid.
	Actually, maybe they are okay with aid to Israel.
	I'm really not sure, actually, how they feel about the Israel bill.
	But it was added as a way to create a grand compromise, where Democrats want more aid for Ukraine, and Republicans want border control.
	Trump killed that.
	They don't always have to come together in one giant package, but that's the way they put it together.
	And now the Speaker of the House is unwinding it and turning it into four separate bills, which I actually think is a very creative solution, to be honest with you.
	Even though he's a Republican and in theory I should be opposed to him, I think he's come up with a creative solution here.
	The border bill also provided exclusive jurisdiction for D.C. courts.
	You're familiar with that?
	I don't think that is a clause that I would support.
	But then again, when you're in Congress, sometimes you have to accept that you agree with 90% of the bill and there's a few things in it you disagree with.
	That's not how I would do it.
	I think it's all over the country.
	We've got to hammer this down, though, because thus far you disagree with the 5,000 or up to 5,000 illegals.
	You want a point-based, merits-based immigration system.
	You can see that they are economic migrants at best and not asylum seekers.
	And you don't agree with the jurisdiction clause.
	What the hell was there in that border bill that possibly resolved any problem, other than giving more powers to D.C. that it didn't already have?
	Like I said before, there was one to two weeks where Republicans were going to negotiate on that bill, and I'm sure they would have fixed many of those things in order to get them on board.
	I think they honestly were opposed to it at the exact moment when Trump said, don't even try to fix this bill, just kill it.
	But I'm asking you, what was good in that bill that actually would have resolved the problem?
	Ah, well...
	That bill is not perfect.
	I am not saying that that is my favorite bill at all.
	It's a bill that I would have passed because I believe in aid to Ukraine, and I believe we need to do something at the border.
	There actually are things that can be done by executive order that don't even require legislation.
	And so as an overall package, I would have voted in favor of that in order to clear all these issues.
	Off the table in Congress and make progress on them.
	Because I think right now, immigration, the tension is ramped up too high.
	We haven't upgraded our laws in 40 years.
	Like in a Palmer administration, which I'm going to have to wait four more years or eight more years for that, we would analyze every bill five years after it's passed and 10 years after it's passed and say, what were the objectives from this bill?
	How many people did we think it would get out of poverty?
	Or how many people did we think would get green cards?
	Or whatever the metric is that we would say, did it achieve its metric or not?
	If it didn't achieve its metric, we're throwing that bill out.
	That law did not work.
	We're going to replace it with a new law.
	And that's probably because I'm an impact investor and all the companies that I invest in on a quarterly basis, they report their profit and loss to me, and they also report their impact metrics.
	And I think if my companies can do this reporting on a quarterly basis, for sure we could be doing impact reporting on an annual basis at the federal level and establishing rules that if it's not succeeding, we think we throw that thing out after five years or replace it with a better bill.
	I actually want to get back to something you mentioned in there.
	And again, this is not intended to be a debate and I'm going to be...
	It's okay.
	I enjoy feisty conversation like this.
	Well, you mentioned, you know, you think a lot of this could be done by executive, what's the word, executive order?
	Not a lot of it.
	Some of it could be done by executive order.
	We could actually solve some of our issues at the border.
	Okay.
	With both executive order and hiring judges.
	Some of that can be done as well without...
	Without 60 billion to Ukraine, without guaranteeing 5,000 legals a day, without giving D.C. exclusive jurisdiction.
	Okay.
	A lot of it can be done by executive order, or some of it.
	I won't put words in your mouth.
	I may be crazy, but I'm not senile yet.
	I believe Joe Biden said, I don't have the power, give me the power.
	And I believe, retorting on Twitter at the time, you have the executive authority, Trump used it to secure the border, and then got sued by states and by political activists to not secure the border.
	It's one thing to be in the silo.
	I'm going to stop the question, actually.
	I just wanted to ask that.
	Why does Joe Biden say he doesn't have the power when even you are conceding he has some executive authority to solve a large part of this problem?
	Well, I really can't get in Joe Biden's head, but I will try a little bit because I can understand it somewhat, having been an executive many times before I've run multiple companies as a turnaround CEO and a founder, is you can only work on so many things at once.
	And right now, Joe Biden has a very full plate with what's going on in Israel, what's going on in Ukraine, the border, which we're talking about.
	He is trying to solve many different things simultaneously.
	And two executive orders are not his focus right now.
	His focus is on getting a big border bill done or getting money to Ukraine before they run out of weapons.
	I mean, there's a significant chance right now that Russia could overrun Ukraine and take over the country in the next year if we don't provide some aid.
	Now, I actually would have compromised a while ago and tried to move it to something like $30 billion in aid and nudging and winking behind the scenes to say, Ukraine, we've got to come to a peace agreement here where it's possible that a small percentage of the country is going to need to go to Russia.
	This is not our desired outcome.
	This is not your desired outcome.
	We're not a bottomless pocket here where we can keep funding this forever and ever and ever.
	We were right to step in and support Ukraine at the very beginning to stop Russian aggression.
	I posted on LinkedIn very extensively about that, the similarities to Germany's expansionism in World War II.
	But at this point, we need to help get them to peace because they don't have enough fighting men left and they don't have enough weapons to win this war.
	The best we can get to is a negotiated stalemate.
	Let me push on one thing before we get to the Ukraine stuff because it's a whole different topic.
	Joe Biden rolled back.
	Some of Trump's executive orders on the border, correct?
	That is correct, yes.
	And that's because some of them were...
	I mean, you remember there were all those...
	News articles about people living in cages and children being separated from their parents.
	There was a lot of mismanagement during the last year of the Trump administration where there were atrocities that were being committed on people who were coming here illegally.
	So that's why I said this issue started 10 years ago.
	This was not something that just started on Joe Biden's watch.
	Not started on.
	It was indeed predating Joe Biden.
	It was predating Trump.
	It was his campaign.
	But rolling back executive orders to secure the border is going to...
	I don't know who can hear that.
	See the numbers as they spiked afterwards and then come to any conclusion other than Joe Biden exacerbated the problem, made a political move that devastated not just his country that he's supposed to be representing, but we're all familiar with the amount of sex trafficking that's going on with the illegals bringing over children?
	I mean, how does anybody look at that and then say, I'm going to vote for that guy because he gets my full endorsement?
	What does he have to do to screw up even more than that?
	The border policy has been choppy over the last four years, and I don't think he was right to roll back those executive orders.
	Now, even though I've endorsed President Biden, there are still a few areas where I disagree with his policies.
	One is on Gaza and one is on immigration.
	You've picked immigration.
	I'm just being very transparent and honest how I would handle it differently.
	But the reason why I still support Joe Biden as the right person here is in part because Donald Trump is a cancer on our democracy, which I know your listeners are not going to like.
	And I actually don't really like the current case that's being litigated right now, the hush money porn star case.
	It's quite clear what Donald Trump did there.
	You know, he had sex with a porn star.
	He paid money to keep her quiet.
	And he tried to make sure that that was not revealed during the election because it could have gone against him.
	Should that become some giant case now, so many years later in the middle of the 2024 election?
	I don't actually think so.
	I think everybody knows what happened there.
	And I don't think that this is a case that really should be being pursued right now.
	Now, all that said.
	Joe Biden is not pursuing it.
	This is being run out of the state of New York and the prosecutor there, who is a different person than Joe Biden.
	He has different goals.
	Maybe he wants a promotion someday.
	Maybe he has designs on being the attorney general someday.
	He has his own reasons for pursuing that case.
	And so I'm smart enough to kind of see behind the scenes what's going on there.
	But Joe Biden is not pursuing that case himself.
	And you've got to take some time to learn about that.
	Well, I'll say a lot of people are going to look real stupid if it actually comes out like Michael Avenatti said.
	And it turns out that Stormy Daniels was actually extorting Trump and not vice versa.
	But we'll get there.
	As far as I'm concerned, that entire thing is a...
	That is a separate can of worms.
	I don't buy into...
	It is a very separate can of worms.
	I don't buy into the Joe Biden having nothing to do with it.
	We saw how Joe Biden's administration was involved in the RICO charges.
	You know, a Soros-funded Alvin Bragg.
	But totally separate issue.
	Bringing it back to Ukraine.
	Yes.
	I mean, you're familiar and you can concede whether it's 30% or 70% of the aid being given, transferred, the money being transferred to Ukraine does not make it to the end lines.
	I mean, you can concede it's anywhere between 30 and 70% or do you disagree with that?
	Well, the fact that neither of us know that to a percentage like 57% or 65%.
	Is a problem.
	We should be doing a lot better accounting, a lot better tracking of that.
	We should be requiring more detailed reporting from the Ukrainians so that we know that.
	Now, at some level, it's very difficult to keep track of this during a war, but we have so many people that are involved.
	We should know that to the exact percentage.
	And you'll concede that not only do we not, we don't know it to a wild percentage.
	I don't know it.
	It's possible it's published in some article somewhere, but just hasn't been widely.
	It was published by CBS and then they had to take it down because, you know, as far as, you know, nobody got their hands and they just decided this.
	Yeah, but at the same time, hold on one second.
	At the same time, I think most Americans think that this is just supported by the United States, when in fact more than 50% of the aid that's going to Ukraine is actually coming from the Europeans, who are closer to that war and have more incentive to make sure that Ukraine doesn't get overrun.
	And that doesn't get reported at all.
	It's just kind of mind-boggling to me that people don't know that.
	What is the dollar figure thus far on all aid, weapons, etc., that's been...
	Do you have an idea as to what the figure is now?
	It's above $100 billion at this point.
	Is it above $200?
	I think it's in the $100 to $150 range, but it's one of those things where, again, you and I should know that precisely as opposed to being uncertain about that.
	And especially given all the press that's been covering it all this time, we should know that.
	Americans are concerned.
	We spent more than a trillion dollars on Afghanistan, more than a trillion dollars on Iraq.
	We lost so many of America's soldiers over the years on those two conflicts.
	And so most Americans need to be told...
	This is not going to be another forever war.
	It's very important that we stop Russian aggression.
	And if we actually encourage the Ukrainians to come to a peace where Ukraine still is a country at the end of that peace, then we will have stopped the aggression.
	But to say that Ukrainians are going to win the war somehow...
	Which I guess means pushing Russia all the way back into Russian territory.
	It's just not possible.
	That is not possible at this point.
	And we made the same mistake in Iraq and in Afghanistan when things were unwinnable.
	We kept saying we are going to win it.
	This goes all the way back to Vietnam.
	The United States is not good at saying this is not winnable, this war right now.
	So we need to sue for a peace that nobody loves and stop the bloodshed.
	But Jason, as far as my understanding goes, Ukraine was told to walk away from the negotiation table.
	The West and Europe sabotaged or put an end to any negotiation because, and I'll float this idea by you, maybe the goal is not for Ukraine to actually win.
	It's just to do as much damage to Russia as they think they can do, fighting a proxy war with Ukrainian blood.
	And, you know, like, what's his face?
	Was it David Cameron who said?
	It's a good return on investment for American dollars.
	They don't have to put out any soldiers.
	They get to use Ukrainian men and women and the blood of the Ukrainian men and women to lubricate this war machine so they can deplete Russia's military capability if the goal is not to win.
	I think that's terrible.
	I have read those same reports and that was about a year ago and I do think we should always be looking for ways to get to peace.
	Don't make jokes, people, that he's ducked out because it got heated.
	He's in an airport.
	Or he's somewhere where I think the internet might be a little weak.
	We'll see when he comes back.
	Hold on.
	I hope he's going to come back.
	Unless that's my internet.
	Is that my internet?
	Chad, is that my internet?
	Hold on.
	Let me go to locals and see if it's my internet.
	Is that my internet?
	In locals, they say.
	The DNC got him.
	I'll mention this when, well, if and when he comes back, or when and if he comes back.
	It's an amazing thing.
	We're seeing two sides of the brain fighting over something here because it was going to be my next question.
	Jason, please come back if you're watching.
	Everyone sees me.
	Okay, so I'm good.
	We'll see if he comes back.
	And I don't want to speak ill of him.
	I don't want to speak of him in his absence because I'm not that type of person.
	But I will assess this afterwards.
	But I hope he comes back.
	Let me just text the team and see if we're going to come back here.
	Sweet.
	Anytime.
	That's not the right text.
	Give me a second, people.
	Let me know if he can make it back.
	Stopping so damn nice.
	No, because first of all, it is a discussion and he deserves respect for coming on.
	Whether or not you disagree with him.
	And by the way...
	You can piece this together afterwards and you can find the mutually incompatible positions being espoused in one person.
	I think that's where...
	Look, I'm not saying that I'm going to wake him up like I have the absolute truth, but I think you look at a chess game and it doesn't matter who you want to win.
	You can look at where the moves don't make sense or you can see where the next logical move is.
	Okay, we got him back.
	The DNC released him or the FBI released him.
	Okay, he's...
	I'm joking.
	I'll make jokes.
	Jason, I got you back in here.
	How are you doing?
	I'm doing well.
	Sorry about that.
	I got cut off in the middle because I powered off.
	The computer powered off on its own.
	Well, just so you know, the jokes that the DNC got you, the CIA got you, FBI.
	Okay, so my question though was, and I said it when you were gone, I was going to say when you were here, you're sort of conceding certain fundamental points that undermine the subsequent affirmation that I'm still going to support this thing.
	It's one thing to say, I support Ukraine because I've picked them as the good guys in this war that might be just a war among bad guys.
	But as a matter of practical reality, Ukraine was encouraged to walk away from the negotiation table because the West and apparently the UK were going to use the blood of their soldiers, their men and women, as lubricant for the war machine.
	And now you're saying...
	Yeah, they need to come to grips with the fact that they can't win this war.
	Of course they could never win this war.
	That might have been the reason to negotiate.
	Concede a certain territory.
	Whereas the people on the Democrat side from the beginning were saying, you don't negotiate with Hitler.
	If you give Hitler Poland, he'll take all of Europe, which I think is a terrible, stupid, historically illiterate analogy.
	But that's what your party is saying.
	How do you continue to support it?
	Well, first of all...
	The David Cameron quote and telling Ukraine to walk away from the negotiating table.
	We don't know for sure if that's true, but I'll take for a moment your saying that it's true, and I've read it in reports as well.
	That was almost a year ago.
	The war was at a different place back then, and I do think and also know that many American leaders and British leaders and German leaders...
	I believe it's a different time now, and we should always reevaluate each war every year to say, is this still a reasonable war to be in?
	Is there a way to get to a peaceful settlement?
	And maybe even every month in the case of Israel, where I do think it's changing minute by minute almost over there.
	And at this point, it's really clear.
	Even though I was strongly in favor of Ukraine aid at the very beginning and believe that was the right policy, at this point, we need to have...
	A conversation with the Ukrainians about the right amount of aid and the way to get to the negotiating table so we can sue for peace.
	Otherwise, it's highly likely that this could become a forever war.
	Or that this actually is a war that Ukraine loses.
	And so we actually have to just really hone in on what is achievable here.
	And we want to get to an exit in the Ukraine war where most of Ukraine, probably three quarters or 80%, still remains with the Ukrainians.
	And unfortunately, a small percent is going to need to go back to Russia.
	And I do think I could get cancelled for saying this.
	But to me, it's more important that people...
	Lives are at stake.
	And we need to be realistic about this.
	America needs to learn a different way to get out of wars than what we've done in the past, which is stay in them way too long, overstay our welcome, lose too many of our own soldiers, result in many, many deaths of the people that live in these far-flung regions.
	It's clear that a different approach is needed on foreign policy.
	Now, you say in the beginning you were very much in support of it.
	We have to reassess the war.
	Now it looks like, or now what people were saying from the beginning, that Ukraine will never win this war.
	A, that B, it was not a war that started in 2021 or 2022.
	When was it?
	2022.
	It started in 2013-14.
	2013-14.
	And that there are legitimate grievances as relates to the eastern region.
	A lot of people were saying that from the very beginning.
	The people who weren't are what I call the war whores and the military industrial complex warmongers who said...
	But we know when Putin invaded, he was not invading just to take the Donbass region.
	He went straight for Kiev.
	He invaded from the north, from Belarus, also from the south.
	We know this clearly from intelligence and further reporting that Putin even wrote a very long op-ed.
	In Russia that was published about a year before he went into Ukraine, where he said he wanted to basically reestablish greater Russia.
	He also said this in the interview that he had with Tucker Carlson.
	He wants to bring Belarus, Ukraine, and perhaps some of the other states like Georgia back into greater Russia.
	That's what he wants to do.
	He's written it.
	He's actually written it.
	He's just adopting the same Democrat negotiation tactic to say, give us 5,000 illegals a day so that we can come to the Donbass region at the end.
	This is different.
	This is very different.
	It's a major global power with nuclear weapons that's saying he's going to invade five of his neighbors.
	I understand what's different about it.
	What's similar about it is the negotiation tactic which the DNC is employing on the border issue but now faulting Putin for using, arguably using, in the Ukrainian world.
	You're conflating two completely different things.
	Maybe, but I can appreciate that.
	That's our argument.
	Okay.
	That's Ukraine.
	And by the way, nobody cares about my position on continual funding of foreign conflict or foreign aid.
	The other litmus test, and I've witnessed this now in my lifetime, and I think you have as well.
	You ran track in high school, correct?
	That's correct.
	I actually got a partial scholarship to the University of Virginia.
	I'm very proud of my running career.
	Hypothetically.
	You decided you felt like a girl and decided to compete there.
	What is your position?
	Well, we know what the Democrats is, I think, give or take.
	Your position on the other litmus test of the day, boys competing in girls' sports, men competing in women's sports based on self-identification.
	Wow, you really have done a good job of researching and picking every position where I disagree with the Democratic establishment.
	I haven't found one where you agree with them yet.
	Yeah, I know.
	It's interesting.
	What I believe there is that there are a very small percentage of children who actually are born and their biological sex is one sex, but their mind believes that they are a different sex.
	This usually doesn't emerge until they're around 10 to 13 years old.
	And these kids should be allowed to compete in the sport.
	That they feel like they are part of.
	However, you know, having run track, there's all these rules at the Olympic level about how much testosterone you have and whether you should be able to compete if you're in women's sports.
	And I do believe that, you know, at the club level, it should be fine.
	At the high school level, when they're just competing team against team and it doesn't matter for a championship.
	That should be okay too.
	However, when it's for like a national championship or even a state or regional championship, that's where I should draw the line because people who have biologically an X and Y chromosome like me, we have a genetic advantage on sports.
	You know, this is like one bell curve against another.
	It's the same reason why men are on general taller than women.
	That doesn't mean there's like one...
	A girl who's much taller than the boys at certain ages, that does happen a lot, especially in middle school.
	But at the high school level, we should not have biological boys competing against biological girls.
	All right, I'll accept the distinction, which seems to be, I mean, you're basically saying recreationally it's fine when you play tag football after school, it's fine, but for competitive it's not, but competitive at a certain level, and I might say that's an arbitrary distinction when you're looking at a 12-year-old.
	And honestly, that shouldn't be decided by the president.
	I mean, I shouldn't even probably be weighing in on that.
	That really should be decided by the people who run those athletic leagues at the appropriate athletic league level.
	So that when I hear that the state of Florida is getting involved in this, I'm like, that's probably not a good idea either.
	It should be decided by the people who run the football league or the people who run the softball league.
	That's not a state political issue.
	That's a league issue.
	Well, I mean, some people might say that it's a Title IX issue, whether it's at a recreational squash club for a weekend tournament where a girl should not have to compete against a boy.
	I generally believe that the government, the federal and state government, should stay out of people's lives.
	And so I don't really think that the government should be weighing in on who should be playing softball or who should be running track.
	That should be done at the league level.
	And really, politicians should not be meddling in that.
	Okay.
	This is where you agree.
	One agrees to disagree on the gray zone of recreational sports, but you take a position adverse to the party on competitive sports.
	And I guess it's a no-brainer whether or not a kid identifies as a girl that he's not changing in the changing room, even if it's recreational.
	At this point, so many schools have all-gender bathrooms.
	They've used those handicap bathrooms to kind of double them up as an all-gender bathroom.
	But I really think that's a non-issue as well at this point.
	You know, we Americans, we find ways to solve things.
	We don't let these types of issues...
	Overrun just getting something done.
	And at almost every school now, there's a boy's locker room, a girl's locker room, and then what used to be called a handicap bathroom, which now doubles as an all-gender bathroom.
	And the problem is solved.
	There's no real problem there.
	Well, there's no problem so long as we agree that even if a boy thinks he's a girl through gender dysmorphia or whatever, for a girl to be compelled to be exposed to the male genitalia is unacceptable.
	I mean, that we can agree on.
	Yes, there should be no biological boys in the biological girls' bathroom.
	Let me just check that off the list of things you're going to get in trouble for over the weekend.
	In high school and middle school.
	We're making progress.
	Okay, now let's go to another one where I think you might agree with the party line.
	Hold on a second.
	Oh no, we're going to do this one.
	Abortion, Jason.
	I've never been able to ask a registered Democrat this question.
	Viva voce.
	So they actually have to answer.
	First I'll ask you your position on abortion before I get to my million dollar question.
	Absolutely.
	And you've been smart about your questions so far, so I want to compliment you.
	So I am very strongly right to choose.
	And in fact, I think if there are any Democrats that listen to your podcast, and I doubt there are many, the number one thing you can do this time around is to actually vote in favor of or donate to those ballot initiatives that are trying to make, to essentially return us to a Roe v.
	Wade world by ballot initiatives in 13 states that are doing them this year, including...
	Arizona is the most publicly known one that's been in the news a lot lately.
	I believe that the government should stay out of personal decisions like this.
	And this is one of the toughest personal decisions that a woman can make.
	And so the government should not be involved in that decision.
	It should be between a woman and her doctor.
	Well, this is going to be the question then.
	Can you concede that it should not be a question of a woman and her doctor up until the day before delivery?
	Can we agree on that?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, in fact, I've even gone on the record and said that I would compromise.
	You know, I think we actually are getting close to what I call a common sense compromise here, which is that a woman has the right to choose up to somewhere between 18 and 22 weeks.
	And that's a very reasonable compromise.
	I mean, some of these bills that I've seen proposed are 12. 14, 16 weeks.
	And what Democrats believe is that a woman should be able to have a right to an abortion up until viability, which is now about 23, 24 weeks is when viability happens.
	So I would compromise at 20 weeks and say, you know, let's take this off as being a hot button issue and move along.
	18 to 20. That's where your line would be.
	I'm not going to bring up images of what a baby looks like at 18 to 20 weeks.
	Some people are going to say, look, I understand only one end of the spectrum on this, that people believe life begins at conception.
	And I understand that position.
	It's a politically impossible proposal.
	But for the flip side, for Democrats to say, well, there's no cutoff date.
	It's between a woman and her doctor.
	At least you picked a date that I think is going to shock a lot of people in my audience or it's going to upset them because it's far too late.
	But at least you can see there's a point after which it's no longer between a woman and her doctor.
	That's correct.
	And that's because by the time it gets to viability, 23 or 24 weeks, the reason why is because there are now two people involved.
	There is a baby and there is the mother.
	But at an earlier stage, that...
	Embryo or fetus is not viable.
	It couldn't survive outside the woman's womb.
	And so that's why we need to use the science.
	As much as possible and get away from this being an ideological football.
	In general, I mean, part of why I started the organization Together, and that's why it says Together beneath my name here, is because I do believe we can come up with common sense solutions that bring together people from the right and the left.
	And I think a common sense solution would be to create that cutoff between 18, 20 weeks, and actually, you know, get to consensus, and then let's move on to solving the next problem.
	Because we have a lot of problems to solve in America, and we can't keep arguing over.
	Problems from 40 years ago.
	Since the viability question, I can understand the arguments.
	And apologies, I'm going to move my thing here a little bit so I can find a more comfortable location.
	Don't worry about it, please.
	The viability argument, I've always understood.
	The question then becomes the conceptual one with scientific advances.
	If viability is bumped up to 16 weeks, what then?
	And at least there's an interesting concession that at a certain point in time, there are constitutional rights for the unborn baby.
	That trump a woman's right to choose between her and her doctor.
	Okay, that's fair enough.
	And that's partly because, you know, we don't translate it into months, but 20 weeks is approximately five months.
	That's great.
	By that time, a woman knows that she hasn't had her period multiple times in a row.
	She probably has even had an ultrasound.
	She's been checked out.
	Now, this is not always true.
	There are some younger girls that get pregnant that don't know all the way up until eight or nine months.
	And I would still have an exception for the life of the mother being at risk, or if it's rape or incest.
	And honestly, this is a tough issue for me to talk about at all, because this really is a woman's issue.
	But I do think it's important for us to be able to talk about these issues.
	And I do stand very strongly behind a woman's right to choose up to 18 to 22 weeks, but definitely not in the 39th week.
	And I don't know why other politicians aren't willing to say that.
	Interesting.
	I can hear the chat.
	I don't need to argue about certain points.
	I don't believe it's the woman's choice, especially when we can concede that after a given point in time, we just haven't determined where it involves another life.
	But again, this is not about hearing my position.
	It's about me trying to at least get an answer.
	Nobody seems to be able to answer that question because if they answer that question, after that point, it's no longer a woman's right to choose and they're going to be on the outs.
	And then the rape and the incest exceptions are interesting because The risk, as I've seen, this will actually segue into the next topic litmus test, is if you admit for those exceptions, they will get weaponized and they will get exploited, and you will end up with a lot of accusations of rape so that a woman can get out of certain limitations, whatever they are, by bringing up that exception.
	And I've seen how things get weaponized, or at least the exceptions get turned into the rule.
	Second Amendment.
	Big one.
	This is the biggest hot topic I've seen.
	I've met a lot of Democrats who are not quite as anti-Second Amendment as some of them are.
	Where does that debate end for you if you become president?
	Do you enact federal legislation, federal bans, federal restrictions?
	So this is one of, and by the way, actually every item that you brought up has been on my website.
	I'm the only presidential candidate that has clearly defined opinions on all 25 of the most important issues.
	So on gun violence reduction, we have a serious gun violence problem in our country.
	You know, I have young children.
	A lot of people with children know that kids have to go through drills in their schools.
	Unfortunately, there are so many school shootings.
	It's very unique to America, and it's a very sad thing.
	And what we need to do is we need to focus on the things we can do to reduce gun violence.
	But also be respectful of the Second Amendment.
	You know, my grandfather taught me how to shoot a gun when he was growing up.
	He also taught me how to shoot a bow and arrow.
	I don't own any guns right now, but a lot of my friends are gun owners, and I know there are many lawful gun owners out there, and the Second Amendment is a very important part of our Constitution.
	But we have to come together and actually find common sense solutions to reduce the gun violence.
	And so one of the areas that I have that's explained on the website is we need to have much better red flag laws.
	And especially around, because many of these shootings happen when the person is identified beforehand as having a mental illness and they should be flagged in the system.
	Or it's actually like, for example, if there's a person that's separated or divorced and there is a domestic dispute, a lot of those result in shootings as well.
	Then there are also people that have criminal records.
	Who end up getting guns and actually committing crimes.
	And I live in Baltimore where there are a lot of crimes with guns.
	And we need to be able to take the guns out of the hands of the criminals.
	And it is crazy to me that we cannot come up with a common sense set of gun reform laws.
	I mean, overall, to make it really simple, I agree with what the Brady Project has been working on in terms of gun violence reduction.
	I agree with some of the positions of every town.
	And I do think we need to solve this problem.
	Well, it's common sense that there are already criminals with guns, that there's already laws that are in place.
	But the vast majority of gun crime, I mean, I'm not wrong, it's something like nearly 90%, 85% of gun violence is committed with handguns.
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	And if I'm not also mistaken, there is a politically incorrect demographic to be noted among that type of gun violence.
	It's inner city, but by and large, there's a massive problem in inner cities with small guns, with handguns.
	Well, actually, most gun deaths, more than half of them right now, are suicides.
	We're excluding suicides.
	Yeah.
	I'd also note that the suicide by guns has gone up substantially in the last few years, but that's a separate discussion entirely.
	Gun violence, 85 to 90% committed with small arms, not with assault rifles, what they call assault rifles, not school shootings in the sense that people use them, in the sense that there's no law that doesn't exist to prevent the type of gun crime that we're already seeing.
	That was a confused question.
	I'm trying to figure out what you meant by that.
	The 85 to 90% of the gun crime that's already being committed already breaks existing law.
	Would that not be a relatively accurate thing to say?
	No.
	Unfortunately, a lot of the gun crimes that are committed are committed with lawfully owned guns.
	But we could actually, with red flag laws, get a lot more guns out of the hands of people with mental illness and prior criminal record and records of domestic abuse or domestic violence.
	And we're not doing that right now.
	That could reduce the amount of gun violence by about 50% if we really got stringent on these gun violence reduction policies, which we really haven't done yet.
	And which I do think are bipartisan and would be agreed to by most people because they would only affect a very small percentage of the population.
	We're talking less than 5% of the population who are criminals with guns or people with domestic abuse orders or people who have a mental health issue.
	Like the parents that recently were convicted for actually getting the gun violence.
	That kid was flagged significantly, not just by the parents, but by other parts of the system.
	I'm double-checking.
	I think it's factually incorrect.
	I think the majority of gun violence is committed with unlawfully procured firearms.
	I'm going to double-check that.
	Because, I mean, that's going to be a relevant fact.
	That's not the stats that I read.
	But I'll go back and look as well.
	I would say my own competence level is about 80% in my fact on that.
	Fact to double check before one takes a position.
	But then that is to say that if it turns out that a substantial portion of gun violence is committed by criminals with unlawfully procured firearms, where does the war on the Second Amendment end?
	I guess the question is this.
	Red flag laws, ordinarily, I think, okay, fine, you can have the discussion.
	Having seen the way...
	Let's do the same thing where you just did on an abortion.
	Do you think that somebody who's on the terrorist watch list should have guns?
	Having seen the way January Sixers were put on terrorist watch lists, I can no longer trust the government to make that decision.
	That's my answer.
	If I were not negotiating with terrorists, if I were not negotiating with a terrorist party that adopts terrorist tactics, I'd say yes for negotiating good faith.
	When I see...
	Wow.
	To me, that's like the 39 weeks that you're asking about abortion.
	If somebody's on the terrorist watch list, which is not politically determined, that's actually determined by them engaging in violence or being in throw of a foreign power.
	Those are people that should not possess guns in America, and we should not hesitate to take their guns away.
	That's a common sense position.
	I want to double check something.
	I believe a number of the January Sixers have been put on terror watch lists.
	Some of them have.
	The ones that actually came into the Capitol with weapons during the congressional session.
	I think right now you're illustrating why that policy cannot be adopted by good faith actors when it's going to be weaponized.
	Well, let's talk a little bit about January 6th then, because I think you must not believe.
	It was an unlawful insurrection.
	It's not about President Trump.
	This is about the actual people who stormed the Capitol, who had weapons on them.
	What weapons?
	You're saying pepper spray and things like that?
	We're not talking guns.
	That's why I'm using the word weapons, because I don't know the exact weapons that they have.
	A flagpole could be identified as a weapon.
	It was.
	That seems a little bit of a stretch to me, but it was used as a battering ram to get through a door.
	So I guess in that case, that was a weapon.
	But I'm thinking about things like knives, nunchucks.
	These are weapons.
	These are actual weapons.
	They were not there for friendly reasons.
	They were there to stop a legitimate proceeding of Congress.
	They did actually stop it for a while.
	And those people that came with weapons are different.
	Now, I found out...
	If you tell me, well, look, there are these, you know, this nice elderly couple that came in here from Arizona and they walked into the Capitol after it had already been opened.
	Those people are not terrorists.
	They should not be classified as such.
	But the people that came with weapons, yeah, they were engaging in terrorist activity.
	I don't think it's such a crazy thing to say.
	Well, I don't, but I think it's wildly crazy to call it an insurrection.
	Is a wild thing to say as well, considering no one was even charged, let alone convicted of insurrection.
	So we're not using words properly.
	And then what ends up happening is we're not going to use red flag laws properly because they're going to be used to go after politically disfavored people who...
	Put them on the terror watch list and then that's your excuse.
	I agree with you that there are slippery slopes on all laws.
	But I hope I can at least persuade you that it's good to have red flag laws and then be ready to evaluate them and see if they're on the slippery slope.
	If we don't do anything to try to get ahead of these people with severe mental illness or with court orders that...
	Are clear signs of potential risk of killing someone's former spouse or someone that they're separated from?
	Then we don't actually have a way to reduce gun violence in our country.
	And I'm not okay with that.
	We need to find ways to reduce gun violence in our country.
	It's a significant scourge on our country.
	And we can do it in a way that protects the rights of 99% of lawful gun owners.
	This is common sense and logical.
	I see the problem is this.
	Jason, when we formulated our opinions, it becomes difficult to reassess.
	Now, hold on.
	I just want to bring up...
	This is a fact check.
	Take it for what it's worth, because we're going to have to give it...
	I'm going to say this is as bad as it could get because of the NPR, the one who's reporting it.
	Weapons, stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats, flagpoles.
	I don't see knives.
	I certainly know that there were no guns.
	So this is where it becomes a very big problem to say that...
	To repeat certain points which become fact merely through repetition, the weapons, and I'm putting it in quotes...
	Hold on.
	What was the source there?
	That was NPR.
	That's as good as it's going to get.
	That's a good source.
	And I'm not going to disagree with that.
	I think that's interesting.
	So I think we've gotten used to repeating things, and I want to make sure before I...
	Not accuse you of being a liar, but accuse you of being wrong, which are two very different things.
	I will actually say that I thought there were knives, but in that story, I didn't see any knives that were mentioned.
	Let me just do a little control F. Knives.
	Knife.
	A pocket knife.
	The case.
	He allegedly had an extra mask.
	His pocket was carrying a gas mask.
	A pocket knife.
	That's the only time the word comes up in there.
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	Now, will you say that you were wrong?
	Oh, no.
	Absolutely not.
	Now, I did say knives, plural, and it sounds like maybe there was only one knife.
	Dude, I think I'll say I will not concede I was wrong at all because if you're going to do an insurrection, it's not with a pocket knife.
	Although, in fairness, the prosecutor there, one of the Jan 6 prosecutors in Florida, stabbed a guy with a pocket knife at a stop on Florida.
	I don't know if you heard about that.
	Hilariously wild.
	You didn't hear about this?
	No, I didn't hear about that.
	This was the prosecutor who prosecuted the lectern guy who was subsequently caught on camera stabbing someone in a road rage incident on a bridge in Florida.
	Not to say...
	With a pocket knife.
	With a pocket knife.
	Okay, interesting.
	Let me tell you, this is good.
	I actually am enjoying this conversation.
	I hope you are too.
	But I am seeing that the museum is shutting down, and I'm going to have to leave the science museum that I'm here in about eight minutes.
	So let's keep going.
	I would like to see if there's anything in the chat that I didn't get to, but let me see.
	Okay, so the red flag was, I can explain why.
	That's the problem, is I've seen the way it's been weaponized.
	I see the way they go through social media posts and then raid a guy's house so they can have an excuse to...
	But does that mean you've given up on trying to solve the gun violence problem in our country?
	Or are you open to some solution?
	What would you propose?
	I'm willing to listen to your solution.
	I would say armed security guards at schools, period.
	It's the most common sense solution for anybody who wants a solution.
	The issue with that is that sometimes those security guards actually are the ones that end up engaging in violence or using the fact that they have weapons to do other things.
	Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
	For the risk of that, have two security guards.
	Also, for schools, that's a very expensive position.
	I mean, it's hard enough for them to pay for teachers, for music these days, and now to have to pay for an armed security guard that's going to take away one or two teachers.
	Or instead of shipping $150 billion, Where 30% of it to 70% gets lost in Ukraine, you could spend that money at home.
	I mean, that's the fundamental problem is to where, oh, we don't have enough money for that, but we have endless money to fund foreign conflict.
	I believe we should be spending a lot less abroad and we should bring most of that money home as well.
	So you and I had an agreement on that.
	I'd say there's a lot of veterans out there who would appreciate the work instead of being neglected and left on the street.
	100%.
	We don't do enough for our veterans as well.
	That's another position you can find on my website where I'm very much in agreement with you.
	So I guess I could say you picked a number of the things where you and I agree instead of there is where we disagree.
	No, I think there's some matter-of-fact stuff that I think is...
	For gun violence, I would argue that it's less about the guns and more about the mental illness, which is being institutionalized, not in the ordinary sense, but rather ratified by the institutions that is the Joe Biden administration, where instead of treating mental illness, we are glorifying mental illness.
	I do think psychotropic drugs play a big part of it.
	And inner-city poverty plays a big part of it, none of which is helped by all of the policy currently enacted by Joe Biden, who you would...
	But hold on, though.
	The number one thing you brought up there is mental health.
	And I did say that that's what we should have the red flags laws for as first and foremost is when people say and indicate in their daily life, maybe by a Facebook post, maybe by communicating it to their supervisor, there should be a way to report those people who people think are at risk of harming themselves or harming others.
	And, you know, in the nitty gritty of it.
	It's very hard to figure it out.
	I agree with you.
	The law is almost for sure going to be wrong or imperfect, and it's V1.
	But I'm a technology entrepreneur, and I believe if we want to solve the gun violence problem, we need to implement an imperfect law, a V1, that attempts to get this red flag thing right.
	And there are a bunch of options out there.
	I would choose one of them, regardless of which one we choose.
	Just to get it started.
	And then we iterate that thing over time to see if it's getting better at actually predicting who's going to commit gun violence.
	Well, as long as we never get on the iteration train where we're actually trying to solve it, we'll never solve it.
	But Jason, look, I guess this might be the good wrap-up question because it's going to loop it all together.
	We have seen the way...
	We have seen the way the Department of Justice has been weaponized.
	The court system has been weaponized.
	You've conceded that the Alvin Bragg prosecution is weaponized, but it's a state thing and not a Joe Biden thing.
	I would never say it's weaponized.
	I think that's kind of inflammatory language.
	I just don't think it's a really appropriate case to be bringing now, eight years after it should have been brought.
	That's the political way of describing...
	Politically weaponized.
	But the bottom line is, and you may feel free to disagree, but I think inside you can't deny it.
	The system has been weaponized.
	The court system has been weaponized.
	Gagging defendants.
	I guess I'll ask you, do you think it's appropriate to gag Trump the way he's been gagged in New York?
	Well, I saw the Jesse Waters quote that you had on there before, and I think it should be okay for Donald Trump to retweet or quote somebody else's comment.
	That seems fine to me.
	However, you know, when I also heard, and I haven't looked at this closely, but that either Trump or some of his people around him were tweeting the names of the jurors or the pictures of the jurors, you know, with any type of threatening language.
	And I honestly don't know if it was Trump.
	I haven't looked at the details of that.
	But that would be clearly a bad example.
	And he also went after the judge's, I believe it was daughter, like going after a judge for their family members.
	That's terrible.
	That, of course, they're...
	Jason, do you know who his daughter is?
	I actually don't know who his daughter is.
	Well, you're going to get mocked relentlessly on the internet for not knowing that because that's something that you need to know to have a position.
	Well, I do know that person is related to the Democratic Party in some way.
	Maybe either as a registered Democrat or as a Democrat.
	No, no, but she's president of a PR firm that represents Adam Schiff and Democrat political action committees.
	She's not a baron Trump of an offspring.
	She's a political activist.
	I hear you.
	I'll take you at face value on that.
	You probably know that better than I do.
	That still doesn't mean the judge can't be impartial.
	There are lots of politicians who have family members who are not the same as them who do...
	Bill Clinton had a brother who had serious issues.
	Ronald Reagan had a family member with serious issues.
	This doesn't mean it's the same for the person who is actually the judge or the president.
	You realize by virtue of the fact that there was that gag order, you were unfamiliar with...
	It's not just that she's his daughter.
	It's not just that she's politically active.
	She's a political activist who did a podcast in 2019.
	Relaying to the fact that her father told her he doesn't like people who tweet, politicians who tweet.
	She's been making millions of dollars based off this very prosecution.
	She tweeted out that Trump should be behind bars when her father is the one...
	Overseeing this trial that she's making money hand over fist.
	And you didn't know that because of the gag order.
	This is why it becomes impossible to support any oversight law.
	Because we're going to see how you're going to abuse, not you, but the Democrat Party where they get politicized and abused by government.
	The reason I don't know that is because I haven't been watching Fox News in the past week.
	I've been busy launching my new organization, Together, which I do want to take at least the final minute here to explain.
	So Together's goal is to get a million young people registered to vote.
	And it's why I would come on your podcast.
	And it's why I actually believe this dialogue is good, even though you might hate my positions and disagree with me completely.
	I think it's really important as Americans that we can disagree with each other, but then actually get down to business and try to pass laws to Improve our government.
	We can't have immigration not being reformed for 40 years.
	That's why we have the problem at the border, ultimately.
	And we can't have all the other things that haven't been updated.
	I mean, we've got artificial intelligence that needs to be regulated.
	We've got a $1.8 trillion deficit that now we've had deficits for 22 years in a row.
	If there was any company that lost money 22 years in a row, all the CEOs would have been thrown out long ago.
	We actually need to solve the bigger problems with our country and our economy, and we need to help more people get to middle-class jobs.
	So anyway, long story short, that's why I've started Together, to help get a million more young people registered to vote.
	We're actually going to try to get 20 young people elected to Congress who are between the ages of 25 and 45, which are considered young in this era because the average age of a person in Congress is 58 years old.
	And I'm going to invest in not just Democrats, but I'm also going to invest in people from the Republican Party.
	I think we agree more than your fans probably expected.
	I'll give you a full...
	I'm not giving you credit.
	It's fantastic.
	Oh, you can give me credit.
	It's okay.
	I thank you for coming on.
	People will say what they say because they'll say it.
	And bottom line, they might be right for saying some things and wrong for saying others, but thank you for coming on.
	And what was I about to say?
	Forget Fox News.
	You should be watching Viva Fry and Viva and Barnes on Sunday night.
	You won't get caught off guard by some unfavorable facts that...
	I pick on the Democrats a lot, but I pick on the Republicans as well.
	You're willing to pick on both sides when they're wrong.
	You're fact-based.
	I actually like that about you.
	And purple is the color we chose for together, and you seem to like purple too, so I like that about you.
	Ironically enough, purple was my grandmother's favorite color.
	Jason, I'll end it.
	I don't want to continue going on without you, so I'm going to end this for everybody out there.
	We'll say proper goodbyes in 30 seconds.
	Everyone out there, Sunday night, stay tuned, and I might be able to cram out a vlog tonight about the daily update in the Trump trial, but Jason, thank you for coming on.
	It was fantastic.
	Really appreciate it, Viva.

▲