September 14, 2026 • 31 mins
What happens when a country embraces socialism—and could America be heading down the same road?
Tudor Dixon is joined by Manhattan Institute fellow and Venezuela native Daniel Di Martino, who shares firsthand insight into how socialism transformed his homeland and why he sees warning signs emerging in the United States. Di Martino explains why he believes Americans still have time to avoid Venezuela’s mistakes, but warns about rising government spending, debt, nationalization, and politicians promising increasingly expensive government programs.
Tudor and Daniel also tackle the battle over AI and data centers, including fears over electricity and water usage, whether data centers could actually lower property taxes and revitalize struggling communities, and why moratoriums could drive billions of dollars in investment elsewhere. Di Martino argues that America’s competition with China makes winning the AI and energy race even more critical.
Plus, they discuss Venezuela’s oil industry, America’s energy future, Marco Rubio’s record on Venezuela, and why Di Martino believes JD Vance is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2028—even though he personally sees strengths in Rubio’s experience and consistency.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You are listening to the Tudor Dixon podcast. You all
have heard a lot of what's going on in Venezuela.
You've seen, obviously, we went and captured Maduro. We are
working closely with the new government. You've seen the transfer
of oil from going to China to now going to
the United States. How this has kind of like completely
(00:21):
affected how the global economy is working right now when
you factor in Iran and not moving oil out of Iran.
It's all been very interesting. But I think the one
stark issue that we can't ignore is that there have
been people on both sides of the Venezuela issue. They
(00:41):
didn't like that Donald Trump went in and took out Maduro.
And then there are people who lived there and still
live there and people who have experienced socialism in the
United States who have said this is the most amazing
chance for the Venezuelan people we've ever seen. And yet
on the ground here in the United States, we have
(01:02):
candidates who have been nominated to run for their party,
the Democratic Party, right now. that are socialists, openly socialists.
So I am so excited because today I have Daniel
DiMartino here. He is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute
and focused on immigration. He was born and raised in
Venezuela and came to the United States in 2016. He's
(01:26):
committed to explaining how socialism destroyed his homeland. Daniel, thank
you so much for being here.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Thank you for having me, Tudor.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
So you are obviously seeing this from a totally different perspective.
I love that you came here and you really brought
conservative values with you. And I think that's something that
people don't really understand is that a lot of people
who get away from these socialist dictators, they have strong,
strong conservative values, strong commitment to family, strong commitment to faith.
(02:00):
And you came here, now you see people that are
going the other direction. What do you think about that?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Well, you know, I think the way I do, Tudor,
because I lived through socialism. The only good thing of
having lived through what happened in Venezuela is that you
really learn that it's very bad and that you don't
want to repeat it. And it wasn't my fault, right?
I never voted for those people. I was in my
mother's womb when the regime got elected into power initially.
And yet we paid the price for the decisions of
(02:29):
other people. And What I fear is that in the
United States now, we do have this socialist movement that
is inspired by what happened in Venezuela, because Venezuela is
the only country that ever elected the socialists into power.
The Cubans didn't do it. The Soviets didn't do it.
The Chinese didn't do it. And so that is the
(02:50):
model that they're trying to apply here, which is why
they praised the regime in Venezuela, which is why they
opposed the capture of Maduro or sanctions against the regime there.
And so we have to keep an eye very, very
open in New York City. You know where I am
right now. The mayor has praised Venezuela's electoral process, criticized
President Trump for capturing Maduro, promises free things everywhere to everyone.
(03:16):
And the consequences are going to be the same if
they're granted the same power.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
You just something you just said really struck me when
you said it wasn't my fault. I didn't vote for
these people. And your parents didn't vote for these people.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
They don't either.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Yeah. And that struck me hard because here I am
in the state of Michigan and I will clearly not
vote for Abdul Al-Said, but many people will. And people
will say to me all the time, why don't you
just leave Michigan? Why don't you get out of there?
Why are you staying there? And I think we are
the United States of America. And if we continually have
(03:49):
people who don't believe that their elected officials represent their values,
they gain more power. If you leave, they gain more power.
How do we stop this?
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Yeah. And, you know, what really struck me was after
the last fraudulent election in Venezuela that was in 2024.
And there was this lady that was interviewed in the
street in the protest because the regime had announced fake results.
And she said, this is my fault because I voted
for Chavez at the beginning. And now my grandchildren left
(04:23):
the country. I belonged, she said, to a movement of garbage.
And so she changed her mind after having lived through it.
The problem is that in the case of Venezuela, people
change their minds too late, right? I think that we're
not too late at all in the United States, but
(04:44):
the problems we face are twofold. On the one hand,
we have the whole fiscal situation that is unsustainable. And
on the other, we have the cultural situation, right? And
I think Abdul really represents that in Michigan, right? And
not just him, it's just we have a new class
of politicians who do not like the United States, which
(05:06):
is really paradoxical, right? Because if you're going to run
for office in a country, you're kind of supposed to
like it, right? To love it. Otherwise, why do you run? Right.
Unless it is to destroy it. Right. And that's why
we have people who say they wipe their hands with
the American flag or they think America is a racist
(05:26):
country or an evil country. Look, if you want to
go to a racist country, go outside of the United States.
Asking Latin America what they think about us Venezuelans. OK,
I can assure you that they don't like us very much.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
It's interesting because people don't. We're so spoiled. We are
so spoiled that we can actually see a candidate who
stands up and says, I hate this country and I'm
running to destroy everything that it is and go, oh,
that sounds interesting because we've never actually seen it. And
that's why it is important for us to talk to
(06:00):
people like yourself who have lived through it and seen
what it is. But you talk about the financial situation
that we're in. You've spoken about this quite a bit
in your young career of being in American politics. There
certainly is a massive amount of debt that the United
States is carrying. This is the problem of both sides.
(06:24):
This is not a Democratic or a Republican problem. This
is a problem on both sides, and it continues to
be a problem. If we get into a situation where
we start to elect people who are saying we want
the government to take over private businesses, we want the
government to take over health care, we want the government
(06:45):
to be in charge of your life, we want the
government to take over housing and we'll all live in communes.
And I know that people hear this and they go, well,
that's extreme. You know what? 10 years ago, there would
have been people that would have been saying, the idea
of all of us paying the government to take care
of everyone's health care is extreme. But now we're very,
(07:06):
very much here, very much here. There were people that
when Bernie Sanders came out and started talking about this stuff,
they said, that'll never happen.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
That's extreme.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
But we're very much here. At the point that we
are at with the deficit that we have, with the
debt that we have, And the potential of taking on
more through socialism, where do you see the country going
if that were to happen?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, I'm going to give you also a reference to
what happened in Venezuela's history. It was not Hugo Chavez
who nationalized the oil industry. It was not the socialist regime.
It was actually 20 years before Chavez came to power,
the democratically elected governments of the time saw the oil boom,
and they thought, we would rather keep the profits, so
(07:48):
we're going to nationalize the oil sector to redistribute and
buy boats. And they expanded government power way before the
socialists got into power. And once they got into power,
they just put their foot on the accelerator, and their
speed of transformation went up. That is what's happening now.
(08:09):
Mamdani hasn't taken over our grocery stores. But for the
first time, you know, in many decades, certainly in our memory,
the U.S. government now owns shares in over 30 companies.
And that is done with a good intention by the
Trump administration. But what do you think a future democratic
(08:30):
administration is going to do with shares in private companies
in this country? They're going to push DEI. They're going
to push ESG, the social and environmental responsibility. They're going
to push more socialism in those companies. Maybe they're going
to take them over completely, right? We've opened Pandora's box.
The deficit, as you say, it's been on both sides.
(08:52):
We have the left saying they're going to put a
wealth tax and redistribute it. That's what Bernie Sanders says.
In fact, President Trump proposed the $ 5, 000 for every American.
And then Bernie Sanders responded, no, I want a wealth
tax and $ 12, 000 for every American. So we're in a
race over who is going to give away more of
our tax dollars when we can't even pay for the
(09:13):
government we have already. People are talking about Medicare for all,
but we can't even pay for Medicare for people over 65.
And obviously, none of this is popular to articulate to voters.
But we need to be truthful, because if we are
not truthful, the financial markets are going to be truthful.
The reason homes are unaffordable today, yes, it's the prices. Yes,
(09:36):
it's the regulations. It's also historically high interest rates. And
why are interest rates high? Because the debt is high,
because the government is borrowing so much that interest rates
go up. The truth is homes would be more affordable.
Businesses would be able to invest more and get more
loans if the government wasn't getting in so much debt.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Hmm. This is really hard stuff to listen to because
it seems like a very dark future. What is your
take on the connection now and the partnership between Venezuela
and the United States and the economic impact of the
oil from Venezuela going to the United States, no longer
going to China, cutting off Iran? How do you see
(10:19):
that impacting the economic situation in the United States?
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Well, in terms of national security, it's very good. It's
also very good that we're not subsidizing China anymore and Cuba.
People forget the reason Cuba ran out of gasoline is
not because of some sort of U.S. embargo. It's because
Venezuela stopped sending free oil to Cuba after January 3rd.
That is why they entered in crisis since January. Venezuela
had been their piggy bank for 27 years. And before
(10:46):
Venezuela was the Soviet Union. And so that ran out
for them. And so those are great wins. However... There
hasn't been an increase in oil production yet. And that
is because who is going to invest for a long
run oil investment in Venezuela? Are you and I going
to put millions of dollars and do that? What happens
(11:09):
after the Trump administration leaves office? You know, they recently
did this oil deal, which I hope succeeds, and I
think it's a good deal, where the U.S. did this
deal with this private company there. They have a great
goal of increasing production by one and a half million
barrels of oil a day, but they need investors. And
they thought that by having the U.S. government as a
(11:30):
shareholder in this venture, that would reduce uncertainty because of
course the U.S. government isn't going to let the company
go down if they're a shareholder.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Really?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Do you think President Gavin Newsom in the future is
going to not let an oil company go down? They
hate oil companies. What are we even talking about? The Democrats,
in fact, probably will purposefully make it fail because they
hate oil companies so much. So the only solution in
the long run to increase oil production and therefore reduce
(12:02):
gas prices, because oil is a price set globally, not
just in America, is we need a full transition to
free markets and a new regime in Venezuela. And that
means new elections. If that doesn't happen, I'm skeptical that
there will be significant oil production increases.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
If a Democrat, I mean, you make a good point
about 28. And if a Democrat gets into power in 28,
then we go right back into this world of we've
got to get rid of all oil. The last three years,
we've obviously seen, and especially in these last two years,
we've seen the impact of oil on the global economy.
(12:41):
I mean, the two are intertwined in a way that
no one could really imagine how deeply intertwined they are.
But obviously, everything moves and everything uses oil to move.
And so every product is more expensive the higher the
price of oil. That's just the way it goes. In 28,
(13:01):
if you get a Democratic president who says we're going
to get out of this and puts us into a
situation where we are really on rocky ground when it
comes to who controls the world's oil and whether or
not we can actually afford to move things. What do
you think that looks like and what does that look
like for Venezuela?
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Yeah, well, I think. It's about oil. Oil is super important.
And look, if we hadn't had the fracking revolution and
all the great policies that President Trump did since his
first term regarding the energy sector, oil would be at
$ 200 a barrel easily amid the Iran war rather than
at $ 100. And I know it's expensive today and gas
(13:41):
went up, but today the United States produces more oil
than ever. We're the largest oil producer in the planet, again.
We're a net exporter of energy for the first time
in like a century almost. It's a really good thing
for the people who are employed in that industry, for prices,
for consumers. It's a good thing for the world, right?
(14:03):
It's also better for the rest of the world when
it's America producing oil rather than Russia or Iran. So
my concern is that the race for the future is
about energy and about technology. And in that case, the president,
despite even if you disagree with him on many other things,
(14:23):
that's where he's been best, right? He's allowed AI to flourish.
He's allowed the energy industry to flourish. And I do
fear that socialist candidates want to destroy that, right? Who
is pushing for the anti-energy and the anti-AI policies. It's
the far left. It's China that's funding these groups, too,
(14:44):
because China knows that if America constrains its energy industry
and its technology industry, we're done.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
So China, everybody has said that China has been leading
the charge on the anti-AI stuff. And I don't think
that we know much about it. I think the average
American is scared of AI. They don't know what that means.
They don't know what these data centers are. But it
seems like there was a push up to this point where,
I mean, if I look at the last 10 years,
(15:13):
the conspiracy theories have run wild in the United States.
And enough of those conspiracy theories have come true to
make everybody leery and everybody on edge about everything. And
I just have to wonder if this Chinese propaganda has been...
in the country for the last 20 years, prepping for
(15:34):
this moment where we are now in an information race
that will determine who is the superpower of the world.
And Americans are scared of what that means for their
personal life. Like there are, you know, my house behind
my picket fence. What does this actually mean to me?
And there's no one explaining this well enough, but the
(15:55):
internet is so wild that The influence of China is
so intense and they have groups on the ground. I mean,
you have said in the past, if socialism ever comes
to America, it will be through votes, not through bullets.
But I will say at the same time, the socialist
movement has taken off so quickly in the last few years.
(16:16):
Just in the last year, 5,000 members to 100,000 members.
They just had a conference in Chicago where they were saying,
if we have to take it through violence, we will.
How do we get Americans to see that we have
to be aware of the dangers of AI and not
fall behind?
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Well, there are several categories of the concerns about AI.
One is what, say, the headline that happened not too
long ago about the developer who said AI is going
to destroy the world, right? The machines are going to
take over and the robots are going to kill us, right?
That's like the catastrophic concern. Look, if somebody believes in that,
if that was actually a likelihood that was significant, you
(16:59):
wouldn't see the stock market at all. The stock market
would tank because if we're all going to die in
10 years, why have anything in the stock market? Just
have cash, right? And spend it all. We're going to die.
So I actually don't think that's a credible threat. The
other concern is the issue of economics, right? There's two
(17:19):
sides to it. One is the companies, the AI companies
are constantly saying, we're going to automate jobs, right? We're
going to take through jobs. We're going to destroy these jobs.
And that is really because the AI company CEOs profit
from people buying their product to automate jobs. So they
want to say that. We haven't seen evidence of mass
(17:40):
job displacement. And I'll say, too, many of the world's
greatest technological innovations that we now take for granted automated
a lot of jobs. The cars in this country destroyed
the horse industry. Over a million people lost their job
in the United States during World War II and after
because of the car industry. How many people work in
(18:01):
the car industry today, though? You see, we create a
new category of jobs. We create a new product. We're
now not in horses. We're in cars. So it's much better.
On the other hand, you have the issue of energy
costs and water and space. You know, people are talking
about their specific neighborhood, right? How is this going to
(18:21):
affect my neighborhood? I think that's a very reasonable concern.
On the issue of water, I do think it's overblown.
I think people should be much more concerned about a
golf course if they care about the environment and water
than about an AI data center, which consumes much less.
But on the issue of electricity, it's true they consume
(18:42):
a lot of electricity, but they also produce electricity. And
if we're concerned about that, which I think we should,
we should just mandate that all the data centers produce
their own electricity. It's that simple. We don't need to
ban them. We just say, produce your own electricity.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
And we need so.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Much tax revenue, right?
Speaker 1 (19:00):
That being said, though, let me stop you there because
this is a big issue in this election. And you're
saying something that I have not heard a single person say.
I mean, I will say there are some– I've heard
Secretary Burgum say it. He said, you know, we did
this in my home state. We were able to do
this where we were able to get the data centers
(19:22):
to come in and really build up the communities. I
do believe it is Chinese propaganda. And like I said,
there's so many conspiracy theories out there that now you
don't know whether or not you sound credible when you
talk about something. But I do believe that the Chinese
have come in and manipulated us to the point where
we're like, I don't care if we negotiate for higher taxes,
(19:45):
better schools, better electricity, more reliable energy grid. I don't care.
if we negotiate for all of this because whatever is
in this black building is scary.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Yeah. And it's been tied to the whole flock camera
issue and it's the government spying on us and the
tech companies control us. Look, this is not China. That
is not what is happening here. Data is what we
use to run the Internet, is where we store the
files that we have on our cloud, on our OneDrive
(20:20):
or Google Drive, right?
Speaker 1 (20:21):
You mean you're using it with your photos and everything
else you have on your phone? You're using these data
centers yourself? Right.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
You know, people think the government's going to track them.
I mean, your phone already tracks you, you know? Like,
we didn't need AI to do that or anything. The
AI is to make us more productive, right? That's why companies,
you know, companies don't actually want to build AI data centers.
That's a cost. That costs them millions of dollars. They
do it with the goal of expanding artificial intelligence applications
(20:47):
so that they can be more productive and therefore make
more money. That is the only reason they do it.
The future is actually to build them in space, not
even here. That's the next technological frontier. But on the
final issue that I do think is what a lot
of people are missing on, I hear this conspiracy, well,
if all these people want to have data centers, they
should have them in the rich communities. Why do they
(21:09):
send them to our poor neighborhoods? Actually, data centers are
mostly in rich communities. London County in Virginia, which is
one of the richest county, the richest county by household
income in America, has the most data centers in America.
Half of the property tax revenue of the county is
data center property taxes. They've been able to lower residential
property taxes. Wouldn't it be nice if we could abolish
(21:32):
property taxes for your house by having the AI data
centers pay for them? I think it would be amazing.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
It's interesting because there's, There's also a question in Michigan,
when we see these data centers coming in, people are asking, well,
why aren't these data centers going into these abandoned factories
that we have in Flint, in these areas that need
an influx of money? Why aren't they putting them there?
And I think that is a lack of government involvement.
(22:00):
I think that when you have a state government that
doesn't understand negotiating, doesn't understand business, and this, I will say,
I've seen the Trump administration, because they have so many
businessmen around and business people around, they are able to
have discussions at a higher level. And sometimes I do
think that that has led to areas where I wouldn't
(22:22):
agree with the government going there. And when you talked
about the idea of the government owning some parts of
these businesses, I can see the writing on the wall
there as well. And that does concern me also that
Democrats get in charge and that changes. But when you
have people in state government that have zero negotiating experience
and you end up with a data center out in
the middle of a field that used to be a
(22:43):
farm and you have abandoned buildings. And I will tell
you the reason that we have these abandoned buildings buildings
in the state of Michigan, is that there is a
law that when you come in and you take over
a spot like that, you then own all of the
environmental issues of that spot. So now that company comes
in and they have to take care of that spot
(23:05):
for life. And some of these areas, they're costing millions
of dollars a year just to make sure that they
are meeting what the requirements are of the environmental agencies.
So I think there's a huge opportunity. It's a hard,
I mean, it's a hard discussion to have and certainly
not an easy campaign discussion to have, but there's an
opportunity for state governments to partner with these data centers
(23:30):
to say, we will clean up the area. We'd love
to put this in this area that we'll never see
good business again because of that exact problem. And therefore
you have like the city of Flint They're not getting
great property taxes. They don't have the massive money going
into their schools. But this would be an opportunity.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
And they need it. Yes. And I think, yes, this
is the opportunity of the century for us. And we
just need to take advantage of it well. If we don't,
they're going to go somewhere else. This is a global industry,
and we would rather own and physically control the data
here in the United States than it being in another country,
(24:13):
because it's going to go to another country and eventually
it's going to go to space.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
And our data will be in another country, stored.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
That's right. I mean, that's the whole problem with TikTok, right?
That it goes to China and the Chinese Communist Party
controls it.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
See, this is the thing that I just don't think
there's anybody explaining this to that level. And as I've
traveled around the state of Michigan, I've heard these concerns
like there is no I mean, even in my town,
just north of me. We have a town called Muskegon Heights.
All the business has been driven out of there. Many
(24:50):
of the homes are owned by the city. Therefore, you
aren't getting any of the property taxes that you would get.
That is an example of a community that would thrive
if they had someone investing in them. And that's the
conversation that is getting lost because of fear.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
Yeah, I do think that at the state level, the
state government could take advantage of this opportunity by negotiating
with the data center companies to direct the investment to
depressed economic areas. I think it would be very good
for them. Now, unfortunately, it does seem that also it's
in the depressed economic areas where there's more opposition to
the data centers. And so, you know, that just feeds
(25:32):
into the negative cycle But I do think there's a
good opportunity there. I also think that it's important that
we don't negotiate to a point where we give special
tax breaks to anybody.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Right. We've seen the disaster that that's caused. But why
do we have to?
Speaker 1 (25:48):
These companies have lots of money. Why do they have
to get tax breaks?
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Right. I don't want corporate welfare for any sector. This
is not about data centers. I didn't like it when
they were doing it for manufacturing and for other things.
and it was a big waste of taxpayer dollars. We
want an equal playing field for everybody.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
I agree. I agree. So how do you... How does
that translate? Right now, we have pretty much every politician
in Michigan and across the country, I've heard this as well, saying, oh,
we're going to have a one-year moratorium on data centers.
We're not even going to let them negotiate with us
for one year. And to me, I see that as
a former business person looking at that and going, well,
(26:30):
then I'm writing that state off for good because a
year in this world, that's... I mean, that's 10 years.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Well, New York State did that, too. Texas moved in
that direction. Pennsylvania is moving in that direction. And that's
good for the rest of the states, by the way.
It's bad for them. It's the equivalent of saying we're
going to put a moratorium on new oil drilling. it
would be very bad for the state. And, you know,
you can make the same arguments about oil. In fact,
(26:58):
you can make even worse. Oil pollutes, Tudor, right? I mean,
you don't want to have an oil well next to
your house, even the people who are pro-oil. So the
data centers are much more environmentally friendly, if that's what
we're concerned about, and they pay much more in taxes,
and they really benefit us. So, you know, people also
use the concern that Well, this doesn't create many jobs, right?
(27:23):
Permanent jobs, it's just a few construction jobs. It's true
that most of the jobs are temporary blue-collar jobs, but
that's a good thing, I don't see the bad thing.
And two, by increasing the tax revenue of your town,
You can lower your own taxes. I mean, there's a
direct benefit to the individuals. This is like when Venezuela
discovered oil and we found finally the golden goose. And
(27:47):
now we have ours here in America. We just don't
need to kill it before it grows.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
Yeah, very interesting point. So before I let you go,
I want to ask you something. You were asked in January,
I think it was the New York Post asked you,
Rubio or Vance, who do you who do you think
for 28? You at that time responded, Rubio, I'm sure
that you have a connection with him because he has
(28:13):
come out against socialism as well. Obviously, I mean, his
family comes from Cuba, so he has had that same
experience in life. Is that the reason or what do
you see in Rubio? So look, I don't think.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
He's going to run. I mean, but if you ask me,
I have preferences, of course. But I don't think he's
going to run. I think Vance is going to be
the only one who runs and he's going to be
the nominee. But, you know, I just think that Rubio
is somebody who's very competent on foreign policy and in general.
(28:49):
I don't think Vance has the same level of experience
that Rubio does. I mean, Vance has only been a
senator for like a couple years and then vice president.
And I also think that Vance has changed his views
drastically over his life. And I'm not really sure I
know what he believes while I do know what Rubio believes.
So that's really it.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
No, that's, I mean, that's a powerful statement. I also
think that you, The time you spend, you know, I
think there's a this is almost a bit of a
manipulation of people's minds as well as like the idea
that if you spend too much time in Washington, then
(29:33):
you can't understand the rest of the people. But I
do think that Marco Rubio has proven Secretary Rubio has
proven that. he spent his time in the Senate learning
about the people. I mean, when he ran for president
the first time, I think a lot of people went,
he's just not ready. He's done such an amazing job
as Secretary of State. We are all so proud of him.
(29:53):
And I agree with you. He has learned so much
and he has so much experience. And he has been
steady in his views. Yes.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
He was a state legislator, too, by the way, before
even running for Senate, since he was very young. And yeah, look...
I've known about Rubio since I was in Venezuela, in
part because the Venezuelan regime hated Rubio. I'm not sure
if you know this, but when we had blackouts in Venezuela,
the regime would say that Marco Rubio hacked them from Miami.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
No way. Seriously?
Speaker 2 (30:28):
That is so interesting. Rubio was one of the few
senators with special protection from the U.S. government because there
was a hijab on him by the Cubans and by
the Venezuelan regimes.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Wow. Well, he just went up a few notches in
my book as well.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
So everybody in Venezuela knows of Rubio very well and
likes him because of that.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
He's been wonderful. He has done such an amazing job.
And you are wonderful as well, Daniel DiMartino. Thank you
so much for being here today.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Thank you, Tudor.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
And thank you all for listening to the Tudor Dixon podcast.
For this episode and others, go to TudorDixonPodcast.com, the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts. Wherever you get your podcasts, you can also
watch on Rumble or YouTube. Join us next time and
share it right now. Have a blessed day.
You are listening to the Tudor Dixon podcast. You all
have heard a lot of what's going on in Venezuela.
You've seen, obviously, we went and captured Maduro. We are
working closely with the new government. You've seen the transfer
of oil from going to China to now going to
the United States. How this has kind of like completely
(00:21):
affected how the global economy is working right now when
you factor in Iran and not moving oil out of Iran.
It's all been very interesting. But I think the one
stark issue that we can't ignore is that there have
been people on both sides of the Venezuela issue. They
(00:41):
didn't like that Donald Trump went in and took out Maduro.
And then there are people who lived there and still
live there and people who have experienced socialism in the
United States who have said this is the most amazing
chance for the Venezuelan people we've ever seen. And yet
on the ground here in the United States, we have
(01:02):
candidates who have been nominated to run for their party,
the Democratic Party, right now. that are socialists, openly socialists.
So I am so excited because today I have Daniel
DiMartino here. He is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute
and focused on immigration. He was born and raised in
Venezuela and came to the United States in 2016. He's
(01:26):
committed to explaining how socialism destroyed his homeland. Daniel, thank
you so much for being here.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Thank you for having me, Tudor.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
So you are obviously seeing this from a totally different perspective.
I love that you came here and you really brought
conservative values with you. And I think that's something that
people don't really understand is that a lot of people
who get away from these socialist dictators, they have strong,
strong conservative values, strong commitment to family, strong commitment to faith.
(02:00):
And you came here, now you see people that are
going the other direction. What do you think about that?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Well, you know, I think the way I do, Tudor,
because I lived through socialism. The only good thing of
having lived through what happened in Venezuela is that you
really learn that it's very bad and that you don't
want to repeat it. And it wasn't my fault, right?
I never voted for those people. I was in my
mother's womb when the regime got elected into power initially.
And yet we paid the price for the decisions of
(02:29):
other people. And What I fear is that in the
United States now, we do have this socialist movement that
is inspired by what happened in Venezuela, because Venezuela is
the only country that ever elected the socialists into power.
The Cubans didn't do it. The Soviets didn't do it.
The Chinese didn't do it. And so that is the
(02:50):
model that they're trying to apply here, which is why
they praised the regime in Venezuela, which is why they
opposed the capture of Maduro or sanctions against the regime there.
And so we have to keep an eye very, very
open in New York City. You know where I am
right now. The mayor has praised Venezuela's electoral process, criticized
President Trump for capturing Maduro, promises free things everywhere to everyone.
(03:16):
And the consequences are going to be the same if
they're granted the same power.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
You just something you just said really struck me when
you said it wasn't my fault. I didn't vote for
these people. And your parents didn't vote for these people.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
They don't either.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Yeah. And that struck me hard because here I am
in the state of Michigan and I will clearly not
vote for Abdul Al-Said, but many people will. And people
will say to me all the time, why don't you
just leave Michigan? Why don't you get out of there?
Why are you staying there? And I think we are
the United States of America. And if we continually have
(03:49):
people who don't believe that their elected officials represent their values,
they gain more power. If you leave, they gain more power.
How do we stop this?
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Yeah. And, you know, what really struck me was after
the last fraudulent election in Venezuela that was in 2024.
And there was this lady that was interviewed in the
street in the protest because the regime had announced fake results.
And she said, this is my fault because I voted
for Chavez at the beginning. And now my grandchildren left
(04:23):
the country. I belonged, she said, to a movement of garbage.
And so she changed her mind after having lived through it.
The problem is that in the case of Venezuela, people
change their minds too late, right? I think that we're
not too late at all in the United States, but
(04:44):
the problems we face are twofold. On the one hand,
we have the whole fiscal situation that is unsustainable. And
on the other, we have the cultural situation, right? And
I think Abdul really represents that in Michigan, right? And
not just him, it's just we have a new class
of politicians who do not like the United States, which
(05:06):
is really paradoxical, right? Because if you're going to run
for office in a country, you're kind of supposed to
like it, right? To love it. Otherwise, why do you run? Right.
Unless it is to destroy it. Right. And that's why
we have people who say they wipe their hands with
the American flag or they think America is a racist
(05:26):
country or an evil country. Look, if you want to
go to a racist country, go outside of the United States.
Asking Latin America what they think about us Venezuelans. OK,
I can assure you that they don't like us very much.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
It's interesting because people don't. We're so spoiled. We are
so spoiled that we can actually see a candidate who
stands up and says, I hate this country and I'm
running to destroy everything that it is and go, oh,
that sounds interesting because we've never actually seen it. And
that's why it is important for us to talk to
(06:00):
people like yourself who have lived through it and seen
what it is. But you talk about the financial situation
that we're in. You've spoken about this quite a bit
in your young career of being in American politics. There
certainly is a massive amount of debt that the United
States is carrying. This is the problem of both sides.
(06:24):
This is not a Democratic or a Republican problem. This
is a problem on both sides, and it continues to
be a problem. If we get into a situation where
we start to elect people who are saying we want
the government to take over private businesses, we want the
government to take over health care, we want the government
(06:45):
to be in charge of your life, we want the
government to take over housing and we'll all live in communes.
And I know that people hear this and they go, well,
that's extreme. You know what? 10 years ago, there would
have been people that would have been saying, the idea
of all of us paying the government to take care
of everyone's health care is extreme. But now we're very,
(07:06):
very much here, very much here. There were people that
when Bernie Sanders came out and started talking about this stuff,
they said, that'll never happen.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
That's extreme.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
But we're very much here. At the point that we
are at with the deficit that we have, with the
debt that we have, And the potential of taking on
more through socialism, where do you see the country going
if that were to happen?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, I'm going to give you also a reference to
what happened in Venezuela's history. It was not Hugo Chavez
who nationalized the oil industry. It was not the socialist regime.
It was actually 20 years before Chavez came to power,
the democratically elected governments of the time saw the oil boom,
and they thought, we would rather keep the profits, so
(07:48):
we're going to nationalize the oil sector to redistribute and
buy boats. And they expanded government power way before the
socialists got into power. And once they got into power,
they just put their foot on the accelerator, and their
speed of transformation went up. That is what's happening now.
(08:09):
Mamdani hasn't taken over our grocery stores. But for the
first time, you know, in many decades, certainly in our memory,
the U.S. government now owns shares in over 30 companies.
And that is done with a good intention by the
Trump administration. But what do you think a future democratic
(08:30):
administration is going to do with shares in private companies
in this country? They're going to push DEI. They're going
to push ESG, the social and environmental responsibility. They're going
to push more socialism in those companies. Maybe they're going
to take them over completely, right? We've opened Pandora's box.
The deficit, as you say, it's been on both sides.
(08:52):
We have the left saying they're going to put a
wealth tax and redistribute it. That's what Bernie Sanders says.
In fact, President Trump proposed the $ 5, 000 for every American.
And then Bernie Sanders responded, no, I want a wealth
tax and $ 12, 000 for every American. So we're in a
race over who is going to give away more of
our tax dollars when we can't even pay for the
(09:13):
government we have already. People are talking about Medicare for all,
but we can't even pay for Medicare for people over 65.
And obviously, none of this is popular to articulate to voters.
But we need to be truthful, because if we are
not truthful, the financial markets are going to be truthful.
The reason homes are unaffordable today, yes, it's the prices. Yes,
(09:36):
it's the regulations. It's also historically high interest rates. And
why are interest rates high? Because the debt is high,
because the government is borrowing so much that interest rates
go up. The truth is homes would be more affordable.
Businesses would be able to invest more and get more
loans if the government wasn't getting in so much debt.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Hmm. This is really hard stuff to listen to because
it seems like a very dark future. What is your
take on the connection now and the partnership between Venezuela
and the United States and the economic impact of the
oil from Venezuela going to the United States, no longer
going to China, cutting off Iran? How do you see
(10:19):
that impacting the economic situation in the United States?
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Well, in terms of national security, it's very good. It's
also very good that we're not subsidizing China anymore and Cuba.
People forget the reason Cuba ran out of gasoline is
not because of some sort of U.S. embargo. It's because
Venezuela stopped sending free oil to Cuba after January 3rd.
That is why they entered in crisis since January. Venezuela
had been their piggy bank for 27 years. And before
(10:46):
Venezuela was the Soviet Union. And so that ran out
for them. And so those are great wins. However... There
hasn't been an increase in oil production yet. And that
is because who is going to invest for a long
run oil investment in Venezuela? Are you and I going
to put millions of dollars and do that? What happens
(11:09):
after the Trump administration leaves office? You know, they recently
did this oil deal, which I hope succeeds, and I
think it's a good deal, where the U.S. did this
deal with this private company there. They have a great
goal of increasing production by one and a half million
barrels of oil a day, but they need investors. And
they thought that by having the U.S. government as a
(11:30):
shareholder in this venture, that would reduce uncertainty because of
course the U.S. government isn't going to let the company
go down if they're a shareholder.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Really?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Do you think President Gavin Newsom in the future is
going to not let an oil company go down? They
hate oil companies. What are we even talking about? The Democrats,
in fact, probably will purposefully make it fail because they
hate oil companies so much. So the only solution in
the long run to increase oil production and therefore reduce
(12:02):
gas prices, because oil is a price set globally, not
just in America, is we need a full transition to
free markets and a new regime in Venezuela. And that
means new elections. If that doesn't happen, I'm skeptical that
there will be significant oil production increases.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
If a Democrat, I mean, you make a good point
about 28. And if a Democrat gets into power in 28,
then we go right back into this world of we've
got to get rid of all oil. The last three years,
we've obviously seen, and especially in these last two years,
we've seen the impact of oil on the global economy.
(12:41):
I mean, the two are intertwined in a way that
no one could really imagine how deeply intertwined they are.
But obviously, everything moves and everything uses oil to move.
And so every product is more expensive the higher the
price of oil. That's just the way it goes. In 28,
(13:01):
if you get a Democratic president who says we're going
to get out of this and puts us into a
situation where we are really on rocky ground when it
comes to who controls the world's oil and whether or
not we can actually afford to move things. What do
you think that looks like and what does that look
like for Venezuela?
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Yeah, well, I think. It's about oil. Oil is super important.
And look, if we hadn't had the fracking revolution and
all the great policies that President Trump did since his
first term regarding the energy sector, oil would be at
$ 200 a barrel easily amid the Iran war rather than
at $ 100. And I know it's expensive today and gas
(13:41):
went up, but today the United States produces more oil
than ever. We're the largest oil producer in the planet, again.
We're a net exporter of energy for the first time
in like a century almost. It's a really good thing
for the people who are employed in that industry, for prices,
for consumers. It's a good thing for the world, right?
(14:03):
It's also better for the rest of the world when
it's America producing oil rather than Russia or Iran. So
my concern is that the race for the future is
about energy and about technology. And in that case, the president,
despite even if you disagree with him on many other things,
(14:23):
that's where he's been best, right? He's allowed AI to flourish.
He's allowed the energy industry to flourish. And I do
fear that socialist candidates want to destroy that, right? Who
is pushing for the anti-energy and the anti-AI policies. It's
the far left. It's China that's funding these groups, too,
(14:44):
because China knows that if America constrains its energy industry
and its technology industry, we're done.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
So China, everybody has said that China has been leading
the charge on the anti-AI stuff. And I don't think
that we know much about it. I think the average
American is scared of AI. They don't know what that means.
They don't know what these data centers are. But it
seems like there was a push up to this point where,
I mean, if I look at the last 10 years,
(15:13):
the conspiracy theories have run wild in the United States.
And enough of those conspiracy theories have come true to
make everybody leery and everybody on edge about everything. And
I just have to wonder if this Chinese propaganda has been...
in the country for the last 20 years, prepping for
(15:34):
this moment where we are now in an information race
that will determine who is the superpower of the world.
And Americans are scared of what that means for their
personal life. Like there are, you know, my house behind
my picket fence. What does this actually mean to me?
And there's no one explaining this well enough, but the
(15:55):
internet is so wild that The influence of China is
so intense and they have groups on the ground. I mean,
you have said in the past, if socialism ever comes
to America, it will be through votes, not through bullets.
But I will say at the same time, the socialist
movement has taken off so quickly in the last few years.
(16:16):
Just in the last year, 5,000 members to 100,000 members.
They just had a conference in Chicago where they were saying,
if we have to take it through violence, we will.
How do we get Americans to see that we have
to be aware of the dangers of AI and not
fall behind?
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Well, there are several categories of the concerns about AI.
One is what, say, the headline that happened not too
long ago about the developer who said AI is going
to destroy the world, right? The machines are going to
take over and the robots are going to kill us, right?
That's like the catastrophic concern. Look, if somebody believes in that,
if that was actually a likelihood that was significant, you
(16:59):
wouldn't see the stock market at all. The stock market
would tank because if we're all going to die in
10 years, why have anything in the stock market? Just
have cash, right? And spend it all. We're going to die.
So I actually don't think that's a credible threat. The
other concern is the issue of economics, right? There's two
(17:19):
sides to it. One is the companies, the AI companies
are constantly saying, we're going to automate jobs, right? We're
going to take through jobs. We're going to destroy these jobs.
And that is really because the AI company CEOs profit
from people buying their product to automate jobs. So they
want to say that. We haven't seen evidence of mass
(17:40):
job displacement. And I'll say, too, many of the world's
greatest technological innovations that we now take for granted automated
a lot of jobs. The cars in this country destroyed
the horse industry. Over a million people lost their job
in the United States during World War II and after
because of the car industry. How many people work in
(18:01):
the car industry today, though? You see, we create a
new category of jobs. We create a new product. We're
now not in horses. We're in cars. So it's much better.
On the other hand, you have the issue of energy
costs and water and space. You know, people are talking
about their specific neighborhood, right? How is this going to
(18:21):
affect my neighborhood? I think that's a very reasonable concern.
On the issue of water, I do think it's overblown.
I think people should be much more concerned about a
golf course if they care about the environment and water
than about an AI data center, which consumes much less.
But on the issue of electricity, it's true they consume
(18:42):
a lot of electricity, but they also produce electricity. And
if we're concerned about that, which I think we should,
we should just mandate that all the data centers produce
their own electricity. It's that simple. We don't need to
ban them. We just say, produce your own electricity.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
And we need so.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Much tax revenue, right?
Speaker 1 (19:00):
That being said, though, let me stop you there because
this is a big issue in this election. And you're
saying something that I have not heard a single person say.
I mean, I will say there are some– I've heard
Secretary Burgum say it. He said, you know, we did
this in my home state. We were able to do
this where we were able to get the data centers
(19:22):
to come in and really build up the communities. I
do believe it is Chinese propaganda. And like I said,
there's so many conspiracy theories out there that now you
don't know whether or not you sound credible when you
talk about something. But I do believe that the Chinese
have come in and manipulated us to the point where
we're like, I don't care if we negotiate for higher taxes,
(19:45):
better schools, better electricity, more reliable energy grid. I don't care.
if we negotiate for all of this because whatever is
in this black building is scary.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Yeah. And it's been tied to the whole flock camera
issue and it's the government spying on us and the
tech companies control us. Look, this is not China. That
is not what is happening here. Data is what we
use to run the Internet, is where we store the
files that we have on our cloud, on our OneDrive
(20:20):
or Google Drive, right?
Speaker 1 (20:21):
You mean you're using it with your photos and everything
else you have on your phone? You're using these data
centers yourself? Right.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
You know, people think the government's going to track them.
I mean, your phone already tracks you, you know? Like,
we didn't need AI to do that or anything. The
AI is to make us more productive, right? That's why companies,
you know, companies don't actually want to build AI data centers.
That's a cost. That costs them millions of dollars. They
do it with the goal of expanding artificial intelligence applications
(20:47):
so that they can be more productive and therefore make
more money. That is the only reason they do it.
The future is actually to build them in space, not
even here. That's the next technological frontier. But on the
final issue that I do think is what a lot
of people are missing on, I hear this conspiracy, well,
if all these people want to have data centers, they
should have them in the rich communities. Why do they
(21:09):
send them to our poor neighborhoods? Actually, data centers are
mostly in rich communities. London County in Virginia, which is
one of the richest county, the richest county by household
income in America, has the most data centers in America.
Half of the property tax revenue of the county is
data center property taxes. They've been able to lower residential
property taxes. Wouldn't it be nice if we could abolish
(21:32):
property taxes for your house by having the AI data
centers pay for them? I think it would be amazing.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
It's interesting because there's, There's also a question in Michigan,
when we see these data centers coming in, people are asking, well,
why aren't these data centers going into these abandoned factories
that we have in Flint, in these areas that need
an influx of money? Why aren't they putting them there?
And I think that is a lack of government involvement.
(22:00):
I think that when you have a state government that
doesn't understand negotiating, doesn't understand business, and this, I will say,
I've seen the Trump administration, because they have so many
businessmen around and business people around, they are able to
have discussions at a higher level. And sometimes I do
think that that has led to areas where I wouldn't
(22:22):
agree with the government going there. And when you talked
about the idea of the government owning some parts of
these businesses, I can see the writing on the wall
there as well. And that does concern me also that
Democrats get in charge and that changes. But when you
have people in state government that have zero negotiating experience
and you end up with a data center out in
the middle of a field that used to be a
(22:43):
farm and you have abandoned buildings. And I will tell
you the reason that we have these abandoned buildings buildings
in the state of Michigan, is that there is a
law that when you come in and you take over
a spot like that, you then own all of the
environmental issues of that spot. So now that company comes
in and they have to take care of that spot
(23:05):
for life. And some of these areas, they're costing millions
of dollars a year just to make sure that they
are meeting what the requirements are of the environmental agencies.
So I think there's a huge opportunity. It's a hard,
I mean, it's a hard discussion to have and certainly
not an easy campaign discussion to have, but there's an
opportunity for state governments to partner with these data centers
(23:30):
to say, we will clean up the area. We'd love
to put this in this area that we'll never see
good business again because of that exact problem. And therefore
you have like the city of Flint They're not getting
great property taxes. They don't have the massive money going
into their schools. But this would be an opportunity.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
And they need it. Yes. And I think, yes, this
is the opportunity of the century for us. And we
just need to take advantage of it well. If we don't,
they're going to go somewhere else. This is a global industry,
and we would rather own and physically control the data
here in the United States than it being in another country,
(24:13):
because it's going to go to another country and eventually
it's going to go to space.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
And our data will be in another country, stored.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
That's right. I mean, that's the whole problem with TikTok, right?
That it goes to China and the Chinese Communist Party
controls it.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
See, this is the thing that I just don't think
there's anybody explaining this to that level. And as I've
traveled around the state of Michigan, I've heard these concerns
like there is no I mean, even in my town,
just north of me. We have a town called Muskegon Heights.
All the business has been driven out of there. Many
(24:50):
of the homes are owned by the city. Therefore, you
aren't getting any of the property taxes that you would get.
That is an example of a community that would thrive
if they had someone investing in them. And that's the
conversation that is getting lost because of fear.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
Yeah, I do think that at the state level, the
state government could take advantage of this opportunity by negotiating
with the data center companies to direct the investment to
depressed economic areas. I think it would be very good
for them. Now, unfortunately, it does seem that also it's
in the depressed economic areas where there's more opposition to
the data centers. And so, you know, that just feeds
(25:32):
into the negative cycle But I do think there's a
good opportunity there. I also think that it's important that
we don't negotiate to a point where we give special
tax breaks to anybody.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Right. We've seen the disaster that that's caused. But why
do we have to?
Speaker 1 (25:48):
These companies have lots of money. Why do they have
to get tax breaks?
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Right. I don't want corporate welfare for any sector. This
is not about data centers. I didn't like it when
they were doing it for manufacturing and for other things.
and it was a big waste of taxpayer dollars. We
want an equal playing field for everybody.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
I agree. I agree. So how do you... How does
that translate? Right now, we have pretty much every politician
in Michigan and across the country, I've heard this as well, saying, oh,
we're going to have a one-year moratorium on data centers.
We're not even going to let them negotiate with us
for one year. And to me, I see that as
a former business person looking at that and going, well,
(26:30):
then I'm writing that state off for good because a
year in this world, that's... I mean, that's 10 years.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Well, New York State did that, too. Texas moved in
that direction. Pennsylvania is moving in that direction. And that's
good for the rest of the states, by the way.
It's bad for them. It's the equivalent of saying we're
going to put a moratorium on new oil drilling. it
would be very bad for the state. And, you know,
you can make the same arguments about oil. In fact,
(26:58):
you can make even worse. Oil pollutes, Tudor, right? I mean,
you don't want to have an oil well next to
your house, even the people who are pro-oil. So the
data centers are much more environmentally friendly, if that's what
we're concerned about, and they pay much more in taxes,
and they really benefit us. So, you know, people also
use the concern that Well, this doesn't create many jobs, right?
(27:23):
Permanent jobs, it's just a few construction jobs. It's true
that most of the jobs are temporary blue-collar jobs, but
that's a good thing, I don't see the bad thing.
And two, by increasing the tax revenue of your town,
You can lower your own taxes. I mean, there's a
direct benefit to the individuals. This is like when Venezuela
discovered oil and we found finally the golden goose. And
(27:47):
now we have ours here in America. We just don't
need to kill it before it grows.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
Yeah, very interesting point. So before I let you go,
I want to ask you something. You were asked in January,
I think it was the New York Post asked you,
Rubio or Vance, who do you who do you think
for 28? You at that time responded, Rubio, I'm sure
that you have a connection with him because he has
(28:13):
come out against socialism as well. Obviously, I mean, his
family comes from Cuba, so he has had that same
experience in life. Is that the reason or what do
you see in Rubio? So look, I don't think.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
He's going to run. I mean, but if you ask me,
I have preferences, of course. But I don't think he's
going to run. I think Vance is going to be
the only one who runs and he's going to be
the nominee. But, you know, I just think that Rubio
is somebody who's very competent on foreign policy and in general.
(28:49):
I don't think Vance has the same level of experience
that Rubio does. I mean, Vance has only been a
senator for like a couple years and then vice president.
And I also think that Vance has changed his views
drastically over his life. And I'm not really sure I
know what he believes while I do know what Rubio believes.
So that's really it.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
No, that's, I mean, that's a powerful statement. I also
think that you, The time you spend, you know, I
think there's a this is almost a bit of a
manipulation of people's minds as well as like the idea
that if you spend too much time in Washington, then
(29:33):
you can't understand the rest of the people. But I
do think that Marco Rubio has proven Secretary Rubio has
proven that. he spent his time in the Senate learning
about the people. I mean, when he ran for president
the first time, I think a lot of people went,
he's just not ready. He's done such an amazing job
as Secretary of State. We are all so proud of him.
(29:53):
And I agree with you. He has learned so much
and he has so much experience. And he has been
steady in his views. Yes.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
He was a state legislator, too, by the way, before
even running for Senate, since he was very young. And yeah, look...
I've known about Rubio since I was in Venezuela, in
part because the Venezuelan regime hated Rubio. I'm not sure
if you know this, but when we had blackouts in Venezuela,
the regime would say that Marco Rubio hacked them from Miami.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
No way. Seriously?
Speaker 2 (30:28):
That is so interesting. Rubio was one of the few
senators with special protection from the U.S. government because there
was a hijab on him by the Cubans and by
the Venezuelan regimes.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Wow. Well, he just went up a few notches in
my book as well.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
So everybody in Venezuela knows of Rubio very well and
likes him because of that.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
He's been wonderful. He has done such an amazing job.
And you are wonderful as well, Daniel DiMartino. Thank you
so much for being here today.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Thank you, Tudor.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
And thank you all for listening to the Tudor Dixon podcast.
For this episode and others, go to TudorDixonPodcast.com, the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts. Wherever you get your podcasts, you can also
watch on Rumble or YouTube. Join us next time and
share it right now. Have a blessed day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.