Stephen A. Smith is a New York Times Bestselling Author, Executive Producer, host of ESPN's First Take, and co-host of NBA Countdown.
Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), covering domestic policy, foreign affairs, bipartisan cooperation, and political leadership. Here's a structured summary of the key topics and insights:
🇺🇸 Domestic Policy & California 🔹 National Guard Deployment in California
- Rep. Khanna criticizes President Trump’s decision to send 1,400 National Guardsmen and 1,700 Marines to Los Angeles.
- Emphasizes that local law enforcement is capable of handling unrest.
- Condemns violence and property destruction but calls the federal response an overreach.
🔹 Immigration & Sanctuary State Debate
- Supports deportation of violent undocumented individuals after due process.
- Advocates for a path to legalization for law-abiding, tax-paying undocumented workers.
- Cites Trump’s own past support for such a policy and urges bipartisan cooperation.
🌍 Foreign Policy & War Powers 🔹 Iran & Israel
- Khanna co-sponsored a War Powers Resolution with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to prevent unauthorized military escalation with Iran.
- Criticizes both Democratic and Republican administrations for unconstitutional military actions (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Yemen).
- Believes diplomacy—not bombing—is the path to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- Supports Obama’s JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) and calls for its revival with stronger terms.
🔹 On Trusting Iran
- Acknowledges Iran’s hostile rhetoric but supports Reagan’s “trust but verify” approach.
- Emphasizes the effectiveness of international monitoring (IAEA) over military intervention.
🧠 Bipartisanship & Political Reform 🔹 Areas of Left-Right Agreement
- Money in Politics: Advocates banning super PACs and limiting billionaire influence.
- Prescription Drug Prices: Supports Trump’s executive order to lower drug costs; introduced bipartisan legislation.
- Endless Wars: Calls for reducing military spending and focusing on domestic priorities.
🔹 TikTok Ban
- Opposes banning TikTok; supports regulating it to ensure American ownership and data security.
- Emphasizes the economic impact on 1.5 million U.S. content creators.
🔹 Fantasy Sports Ban in California
- Strongly opposes proposed ban.
- Criticizes Democrats for alienating young men with such policies.
🗳️ Political Commentary 🔹 Zorin Mamdani’s Victory Over Andrew Cuomo
- Sees it as a sign that voters care most about cost of living and economic issues.
- Urges Democrats to focus on affordability, jobs, and AI-driven economic growth.
🔹 Socialism & Electability
- Acknowledges Mamdani’s socialist label and AOC endorsement.
- Encourages taking good ideas from all sides while rejecting extreme rhetoric.
- Advocates for a unifying, pragmatic approach to politics.
🧭 Leadership & Future Ambitions
- Khanna emphasizes the need for:
- Independent voices who call out both parties.
- Economic leadership in the AI era.
- National unity over partisanship.
- While not declaring any gubernatorial or presidential ambitions, he positions himself as a centrist reformer focused on practical solutions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
My next guest represents California's seventeenth Congressional district. Please welcome
back to the show, Representative Roe Connor.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
How are you, sir, how's everything going.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
It's been a while, man, It's good to be back on.
Good to be back on with you. Not on Bill Maher.
My recommendation for anyone watching do not debate stephen A
on Bill Maher won't turn out well for you.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
So I'm glad like this. I would to go that far.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
But on a more serious matter, before I even get
into Trump and Israel in the Iran situation and what
have you, how is the state of California doing in
your mind and your estimation. We know what's been going
on over the last few weeks. Obviously the Israeli iron
situation distracted us from what was transpiring in California. We're
fourteen hundred National Guardsmen, seventeen hundred, seven hundred Marines United
(00:57):
States Marines descended upon the state of California the city
of Los Angeles courtesy of the President sending them there.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
What has life been like for you guys in California.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
Jud I have a common sense perspective on this.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
First, no one should be on way mos burning them down.
No one should be engaged in violence or harassment against
law enforcement officers, and no one should be engaged in
violence against anyone. And we need to make sure in California,
our local police and our state officials make sure that
(01:33):
people are safe and that there's zero tolerance for violence
or the.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
Destruction of property.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
At the same time, no one in California was asking
for the National Guard or the Marines, and the President,
in my view, clearly overreached. And I guess people just
want common sense. They want California to take care of this.
The sheriff can, the police can. They don't want the
president sort of grandstanding about it. But they also don't
have sympathy for people, you know, burning down down cars,
(02:00):
and they want politicians to condemn that.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
You know what about the notion because you got a
lot of people on the right that they're looking at
California as a sanctuary state and they think that that's problematic,
And ultimately you have elected officials trying to get in
the way of ICE doing its job and what have you.
All of that conflict has stirred up and flagrantly. So
I might add, what are your thoughts about that as
a representative of the state of California, it being essentially
(02:27):
a sanctuary state, the role that a lot of people
believe that's played in forcing and compelling the President to
take the position that he has taken. You're not a Republican,
you're not a member of the GOP, You're a Democrat.
But obviously you know what you exercise common sense in
a lot of ways, and that's why.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
You should be applauded for it.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
What are your thoughts about that situation in terms of
whether or not the President was right in doing what
he's done in terms of because of what's existing in
the state of California.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
The reason I disagree with what the President did is
it was not like there were people who were willfully.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
Standing in the way of ice enforcement.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
I mean, if that was the case in a large level,
that is very different. But I think what most Americans
want is if you're a violent gang member, if you're
a part of committing violence against anyone and you're here undocumented,
that you should be deported after you have your due process.
I mean, they want you to have new process, and
(03:27):
they're fine, But I don't think what most Americans want
is if you're working in a farm job, if you're
working in a hotel, if you're working in a restaurant,
even if you're undocumented and you're paying taxes, that we
need to rip you away from your families and deport you.
I think they believe you should be having some path
to stay in the country and work. And you know what,
even President Crumb has said that that if you're a
(03:49):
farm worker, if you're in the hospitality industry, if you're
in the restaurant industry, if you're working here, if you're
paying taxes, if you're law abiding, then let's have some.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Path to legalization.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
So I want to pop ut of the Fox on
Fox News saying, Okay, it's for president.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
Why don't we find common ground there?
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Why don't we look to a path to legalization for
hardworking tax payer of people who are undocumented and focus
the ICE resources actually on the violent criminals. That's what
you said you would do when you won the presidency.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
I'll get back to that in terms of let's find
common ground that issue a little bit later on in
this discussion, but for the moment, I want to transition
to the Iran Israel situation that has unfolded Over the
last few days, you introduced a war powers resolution aimed
at preventing Trump from escalating tensions with Iran, co sponsored
with Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massey. The Loan Republican involved
(04:41):
in the effort. How did you two come together on this?
Speaker 4 (04:46):
We both believe that this country has been in too
many endless wars overseas, and by the way, that's been bipartisan. Yes,
George W. Bush got us into the Iraq War.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
That was a mistake, but there were a lot of
Democrats who voted for that war, including people like Senator
Chuck Schumer. Then we got into a war in Afghanistan
for twenty years. Now, I supported the initial strikes on Afghanistan,
but we should not have been there for twenty years.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
Then we struck Libya.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
I mean that was I deeply in my President Obama,
but he was wrong in striking Libya in an unconstitutional way.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
And then we were involved in Yemen.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
We were funding the refueling the Saudi planes to strike Yemen.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
That was unconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
So Massey and I have been consistent this is not
a part of an issue. This is not against President Trouble.
Whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. We're saying two things. One,
you've got to come to Congress first before you go
into a overseas war, because that's what the Constitution requires,
that's what two thirds of the American people want. And Second,
the American people are sick of this. They don't want
(05:48):
more troops in the Middle East. They don't want billions
of dollars in the Middle East. They want the focus
here at home, and they want war to be a
last resort, and that's why we introduced it.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
But Representative Connor, you and I both know, particularly in
the climate that exists in today's in today's politics, there's
no way on Earth you're gonna get anything done if
you got to go to Congress to get something done,
because you're gonna have people vote against you, just because
I mean, there are people that have given indication we're
gonna vote against anything Trump.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
We don't give a damn what it is.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
And obviously on his side, there are gonna be people
that are going to vote for whatever he wants just
to be in his good graces. So what's gonna get
accomplished if you have to go through Congress.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
You do think if there's an actual national security threat,
you will get Congress authorizing. Look you're to tell you Bush,
even though I disagree with the war in the Rod,
he got Congress's authorization to go in there.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
For Afghanistan, he got Congress's authorization to go in there.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Now I'm someone who has introduced a resolution to codify
Trump's executive Order on lowering prescription Drutz. So I'm not
one of these people who says everything Donald Trump is
does is wrong and I'm gonna oppose it.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
I try to look at things issue by issue.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
In fact, when Donald Trump was trying to get a
deal with Iran and others were.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
Criticizing him, Chuck Schumer was criticizing him.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Chuck Schumer was saying, no, don't make a side deal
with Iran, don't trust Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
I was saying, no, let Trump try to get a
deal with Iran.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
But bb Nettanyaw who forced his hand, bb nettan Yew
who bombed Iron. They didn't let the negotiation to play out.
And then I think that Trump has two people on
his shoulders. One of the folks are the Lindsey Graham
saying let's do regime change, Let's keep going Trump tweets
out Hamani should be assassinated, maybe we should have a
RN regime change. But fortunately there's another side to the
(07:36):
MAGA base. Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massey.
They're saying you campaigned on no more wars, and I'm
glad he listened to them. I'm glad he listened to
some of us in Congress and after the strikes he said, Okay,
we're done, and we're gonna get us ceased fire and
no more and we're not going to send more of
our troops and risk getting into an escalation. So I
(07:58):
do think it was important that Congress spoke out, and
I think Congress has to in this case.
Speaker 4 (08:03):
If Congress is a little slow, that's probably good.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
Because I don't think the American people need more money,
more wars overseas.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Representative Connor, I just want to make sure before I
move on to my next question that you understand what
you just said. Right here over the digital airways of YouTube,
with millions of people watching you. You just said that
you actually agree with Steve Bennon, Tucker Colson, and Marjorie
Taylor Green. I wanted are you sure you want to
be on camera, on the record stating.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Such a thing. So I'm just checking. I'm just checking.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Absolutely when it comes to keeping us out of the
Warner Ron. Let me tell you, those folks did more
than some of the people in my own party.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
They were vocal.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
They said that Donald Trump, this is the end of
your presidency. This is a betrayal of your base. And
I give them credit, recredits you. There are a lot
of places we disagree, but you know what, it's even
one of the things that I get criticized for my
own party.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
So you're saying that Stephen Bannon is right on something.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
But I think the American people want folks to just
call it as they see it.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
They don't want us in partisan products.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
When they say something I agree with, I'm going to
be honest and say, yes, I agree with them. When
they say thank something I disagree with, I'll make that
clear too.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
I completely agree with you.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Let me move on to my next question, because you
and Thomas Massey structured the resolution as privileged, which could
allow it to quickly come to a House vote, Republicans
largely align with Trump. As I just stated, how will
you move to War Powers Resolution forward?
Speaker 2 (09:32):
And can you get more Republicans on board.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
I do think we can get more Republicans. We got
Chuck Edwards.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
There are a number of Republicans who do not want
this war. Now, hopefully the ceasefire holds and that we
don't need it to come for a vote if Donald
Trump doesn't threaten any further action. But if the action
is threatened, it should come for a vote. And by
the way, this is not against Donald Trump. It's not
even about Iran. It's simply saying that we need to
(10:01):
listen to the people and listen to people in Congress
before we commit our troops, before we commit young men
into a fight overseas.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
One of the things Josh Holly, another.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Republican who I agree with, he said, look, here's the problem.
Now we've sent more troops into the Middle East. We've
got more young men and women being called up. We're
going to have to go to the Middle East. We
put our troops at risk. We're spending more money on
the Middle East. Why aren't we spending the money in
building manufacturing here, on helping people with health care here,
on childcare here.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
So I hope that they do.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Not remove the privilege of this war prowers resolution, they
allow it to get a vote if it's needed, and
they make it clear that we're not going to allow
presidents to get us into more unless wars.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
Regardless of the party.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
You've repeatedly stated that anti establishment left and right must
find a way to work together. But how much hope
is there really in your mind and in your heart
of that actually happening?
Speaker 3 (10:55):
On some issues there is real hope. Let me give
you three issues. The big problem money in politics. I mean,
you should not have people spending two hundred and fifty
million dollars on a superpack and then getting someone elected.
And here's where I think Democrats get into trouble. We
talk about Elon must spending two hundred and fifty million dollars,
we conveniently forget the billionaires who spend hundreds of millions
(11:18):
of dollars on I At our side, there was more
super pac money for Kamala Harris than there was for
Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
So get rid of all of it. No ban these
super packs.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Why should someone be allowed to only give me thirty
five hundred dollars if they're contributing to a politician, but
then go write a fifty million dollars check to a
super pack. That's one area where we the left and
the right can come together. Second, prescription drugs they're ripping
off the American people. They go charge three times less
(11:47):
in Japan, in England, in Europe than they charge ordering Americans. Now,
I understand, if you're going to sell medicine into Mexico,
into some countries in Africa, developing nations, you.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
Got to charge them less. That's humanitarian.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
But why are we paying three times more than people
in the Western world and in places like Japan. So
Donald Trump comes on, he says, I'm going to take
it to big Pharma. I don't I don't want to
make I want to make sure they aren't charging Americans anymore.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Than they're charging people in other countries.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
I introduced exactly his executive order as a bill with
Republicans and Democrats.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
Let's get a vote on that.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
That's a second area left and right, King County, and third,
focus here on home and don't get us into this
huge wars overseas, a defense budget over fifty six percent
of federal money.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
People don't want that. They wanted money in their communities.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
I think that that is a left right coalition that
is coming together, and then we'll take all the establishment
on both parties.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Any thoughts on all the noise being made by some
Democrats that the bombing by us to attack those nucleo
sites that existed an Iran was a successful venture on
a part of the President of the United States Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Do you have people on the left.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Saying it's not nearly as successful as he's claiming. And
obviously we saw Secretary of Defense Pete haig Seth say
that's absolute nonsense. But also give us some time to
analyze and.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Evaluate the situation.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
We believe it was highly successful and that we've derailed
their nuclear aspirations for a long time to come.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Where do you stand on all of that.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Let's look at the facts.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
First of all, you can't bomb know how Iran knows
how to enrich uranium. Second, President Obama, under the JCPOA
had a verifiable agreement where Iran could not enrich more
than five percent at one facility in the Tans and
there was no violation by the IEA recorded until twenty eighteen.
(13:42):
Then Trump came in, he ripped up the deal and
by the time we were bombing it was sixty percent
enrichment and Foordeaux, but it was also enrichment across the country.
Now we don't know exactly how much damage they've done.
They have done some damage, and I hope it's a
lot of damage. I don't want to Ron to have
a nuclear bomb. It's a national security interest to keep
Iran from having a nuclear bomb. But the problem is
(14:05):
that whether it's six months, a year, two years, we
know from JD Vance that they've kept some of the
enriched nuclear fuel. They can make at least ten new
bombs from there, and we know that they have the
know how in some capacity with centrifuges left to be
enriching uranium. So we're going to need a new agreement
(14:25):
to actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. There's
someone my party to say, well, Donald Trum ripped up
the deal, let's just bash him. I actually don't even
have that view. Fine, he ripped up the deal. You
shouldn't have ripped up the deal. Now he wants to
do diplomacy, I'm all for it. Go win the Nobel
Peace Prize if they're going to give it to you,
Go just get a deal where Iran is actually committing
to inspections where Iran is committing not to have blistic
(14:46):
missiles and let's have diplomacy go forward, not this idea
that we're going to go bomb Iran every years or
two years when they start to develop a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
So you believe that Israel and its efforts have been
justified as it pertains to Iran, considering the fact that
Amas and has black people like that were proxies for
Iran in terms of their terrorist acts. Obviously to Hoodi's
and Yemen, we had to deal with them and what
have you. You don't have any issue whatsoever with Israel
and its influence over America, with America doing some of
(15:20):
the things that it has done. You believe that Israel
was in the right in America, was in the right
in terms of the actions we took.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Is that a fair assessment, Sir No, I.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
Think we were in the wrong. I mean, we should
not have bombed them. We should have engaged in diplomacy.
And I think then now who forced President Trump's hand,
He should not have been bombing Iran, not just I
think it's fair to say that it's in the United
States interest to deny Iran and nuclear weapons.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
The way to achieve that was not through bombing.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
The way to achieve that was through the diplomatic type
of painstaking work that President Obama did, where you got
in agreement where Iran was not going to get rich
more than five percent. Why does NETANYAHUO not go along
with that? Because the reality is Netanyau who has had
a mission, a stated mission of regime change in Iran,
(16:08):
and some of the hawks who want from bombing, they
want a new regimes. I don't think we should have
a regime change war. So I think that y'all was
wrong to bomb and we should have allowed Trump to
continue the negotiation.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
I'm glad there's a ceaspar now he needs.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
To go into negotiation with Iran to prevent them from
getting a nuclear bomb.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
I certainly don't believe that the United States or anybody
else should be engaging in regime change either.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
I totally am with you on that.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
I'm just wondering whether or not Iran is somebody that
you can trust When they've chanted death to Israel, death
to America, you know, a million times over over the years,
are they somebody that you can trust to engage in
diplomacy with. That's what I'm wondering about you really feel
that that that's plausible or that's possible when dealing with
you RN.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
Yeah, trust them, but you can verify.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
You know, the famous Reagan thing was trust but verifyrus
verify terrified.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
That's what Obama did. Look, Obama doesn't get their places. Look.
I criticized Obama on Libya, right, so I'm not just
a partisan here.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
But on the Iran deal, they got a deal where
they were verifying. They had monitors and people in and
I ran it the whole supply chain of uranium and
they were monitoring it up through twenty eighteen and there
was no enrichment beyond five percent. That's not because the
Iranian government is trustworthy. It is because they were basically
being monitored by the IEAE. Now, there was one criticism
(17:31):
of that deal. That deal did not apply to ballistic missiles,
so they limited the enrichment in Iran could still develop
ballistic missiles.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
And what would have.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Been appropriate is for the next president to come in
and say, I'm going to strengthen the JCPOA, I'm going
to work to make sure that they can't develop missiles.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
But we have a framework.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
We know that Iran will negotiate with verification, and that's
the policy we should pursue, not because it's somehow you know,
a week or peace loving is. It's the only thing
that's effective. You got two choices. You can either bomb
them every year the waste American tax dollars and put
our troops at risk, or we can engage in verification
(18:09):
and get the IEAE inspectors there like we had in
the JCPOA.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Three quick questions before I let you get on out
of here because we only got a few minutes left.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
And I thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Representative, kind of really really appreciate talking to you and
seeing you again as well. Number one, I want to
get to something that's knee and dear toy y'all are
you were here in January to discuss the looming TikTok band,
which has been extended for the third time despite a
Bob Potterson law passed by Congress that mandates TikTok's Chinese
parent company Byte Dance sell the app.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Where does that stand now?
Speaker 4 (18:42):
I'm glad that law has been extended.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
We can't kick one hundred and seventy five million people
off of an app. We can't kick off people who
use this app to make a livelihood. You know, they're
one point five million people who are content creators in
America and make a living of that. To put that
in context, there's seventy thousand people who make a living
and steel, and to just shut all of that down,
we'ld be devastating for the economy, not to mention for
(19:08):
free speech.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
So what we should do is keep the app open.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
We should require the company to be an American company,
We should require the data be stored in America. We
should make a criminal for any algorithmic interference by the Chinese.
The president is trying to do that, and I actually
support that effort. Place it's another place where I think
that Trump is doing the right thing by keeping the
(19:32):
app open.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Transitioning to another topic, What the hell is this I'm
hearing about? California legislators are proposing a ban on online
fantasy sports.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
What is the I mean, what are your thoughts about that?
What do they do?
Speaker 4 (19:46):
So I'm opposed to that.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Look, I'm never going to get into a sports discussion
with stephen A.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
But you know I was on a fantasy I did fantasy.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Teams growing up. You know, I grew up a Philly's fan.
Philadelphia fan. I used to collect baseball cards. We used
to have a team, my team. You almost never won
my fantasy team. And you know, I never quit quite
figured out whether you need to graft the quarterback or
the running back first.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
And you know, everyone else is looking at points.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
And it always amazed me that you'd be watching these
games and folks would be less concerned.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
About, you know, whether the Eagle's gonna get a win
or forty nine ers were gonna win.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
They just be cheering for the like the random offensive
linemen because they had them on their fantasy team.
Speaker 5 (20:24):
But that's you know that, that's the fun of sports.
Like when you talk about dumb things the Democratic Party does,
it's like, let's go ban fantasy sports and then let's
pay twenty million dollars to understand why we're losing young men.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
I mean, come on, and you wonder why we're in
the state we are as a party. It's it's laughable.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Well, I will say this, and this is my last question.
Can't say that in the state of New York or
the city of New York, New York City, we saw
Zoran or Mom, Donnie beat former governor of New York,
three term New York of New York, mister Andrew Cuomo.
I mean he beat him in the Democratic primaries just
a couple of days ago.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
What was your reaction, what was your thoughts about that?
Speaker 3 (21:11):
It says one simple message, which is people care about
the cost of living. You know, everyone is focused on
what was Zooran's position on Israel, What was his position
on the cultural issues, what was his position on ice?
You know what Zoe Ran talked about. He said rent
is too high. He said that you can't afford your groceries.
He said that I understand why people voted for Trump
(21:32):
because they can't afford to buy a house and the
cost of living, they.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
Aren't making ends meet. And what I'm going to do is.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
Provide actual policies to lower the cost of living for folks,
to make New York affordable again.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
That's all he talked about.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
He had videos out there going to street vendors telling
you about why it costs ten bucks for chicken over
rice a jalal Neil as opposed to eight bucks, and
what he was going to do to bring the cost
of living down. And so what this tells me is
the Democrats need an economic message. We need a message
telling about how we're going to deal with the affordability
crisis in this country. We need a message about how
(22:09):
we're gonna create good paying jobs in America through technology
and with AI coming, we need a message about how
we're gonna build things in this country.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
But representative, he's a self proclaimed socialist. He was endorsed
by AOC, amongst others, and we all know that a
lot of people in a general election for the presidency
sort of turned against that kind of rhetoric, and that's
partially why Donald Trump was voted for. I don't think
that's deniable. So do you think this is something that
(22:39):
could have a profoundly positive impact on a Democratic party?
Speaker 2 (22:44):
When his message, although it.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Was you know, you know, it was articulated very very well,
I might add, is that the kind of thing that's
gonna win you votes in the midterms and a general
election in twenty twenty eight for the presidency.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
If we take the best of him and discard the
areas which we disagree with.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
That's the stephen A approach, right.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
I heard you on one podcast saying you put alc
in your cabinet not because you agree with everything, because
you would take her good ideas and you would reject
the bad ideas. And you'd have some Republican and you'd
take their good ideas and reject the bad ideas.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
That's what people want in this country.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
So Zoran has good ideas about how to bring food
prices down, or if he has good ideas about how
to deal with rents, let's take those. And you can
still say that we should absolutely condemn chance like globalize
the Intafada, and we should recognize that Israel has the
right to exist as a Jewish democratic state. The problem
in our politics is we've become so black and white,
(23:39):
as if you have to agree with something when somebody
won everything. And I think what this country is hungry
for his leadership that starts to bring people together, that
takes the best ideas, whether it's from a Steve Bannon
or a Zoran and says we're going to look at
the best with people have to offer and offer a
unifying vision of this country.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Very last question to you, very last question you the
way you articulate your message. I mean, you're the kind
of person that the people should be listening to, more
should be hearing from more, to be quite honest with you.
Haven't heard your name for the governor see to California.
Haven't heard your name when it comes to a presidential ambition, Sir,
(24:22):
should you be pursuing those things?
Speaker 2 (24:24):
And if not, why not when you seem to be
speaking to a vast majority of American citizens.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
Well, I was promoting you, Steve, and I was just
trying to get onto your ticket.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Don't do that.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
That's what That's what the campaign. But they look, I
think we need more independent voices. That's why I liked
what you were out there saying. I think we need
Let me say the three things I think we need
in this country. Well, do we need people are going
to call out both parties if they are right or wrong,
not just being our partisan tribes. Second, we need people
focused on the economy. My district has fourt trillion dollars.
(25:01):
It's even five companies over a trillion dollars. The AI
Revolution is going to produce huge wealth, but we can't
be a nation half prosperous and half in decline.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
We need people who.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Are going to figure out what this AI revolution, how
we're going to create good paying jobs and economic opportunity
in places that have been left out. And third, we
got to have people are going to be on Team America.
We're going to try to bring this country together, not
be partisan. You know, I'll end with this point. I
voted against, I led the charge against Trump on the
Iran War Powers Resolution, and then I voted to table
(25:34):
the impeachment. And all on the left, some people say, oh,
you're a hypocrite, You're a hypocrite. I'm saying, well, there
are other presidents who have had committed unconstitutional things.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
I don't want to make this partisan.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
I want to figure out how we bring the country
together in a big coalition. So I don't know whether
my cycle politics can win a particular primary, but I
do know it's where the American people are to be independent,
to call balls and strikes, not to be just reflexively partisan.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
Representative Rocanna, seventeenth District of California. Always an honor and
a privilege to talk to you. So I really enjoyed
being on real time with Bill Marer with you. I
really enjoyed our communication since that time, and I have
no doubt we will continue to communicate with one another.
You are always welcome on this show, sir. Thank you
so much for taking time out of your business schedule
to come on. Really appreciate it. You take care of yourself.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
Thank you. It's my honor.
My next guest represents California's seventeenth Congressional district. Please welcome
back to the show, Representative Roe Connor.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
How are you, sir, how's everything going.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
It's been a while, man, It's good to be back on.
Good to be back on with you. Not on Bill Maher.
My recommendation for anyone watching do not debate stephen A
on Bill Maher won't turn out well for you.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
So I'm glad like this. I would to go that far.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
But on a more serious matter, before I even get
into Trump and Israel in the Iran situation and what
have you, how is the state of California doing in
your mind and your estimation. We know what's been going
on over the last few weeks. Obviously the Israeli iron
situation distracted us from what was transpiring in California. We're
fourteen hundred National Guardsmen, seventeen hundred, seven hundred Marines United
(00:57):
States Marines descended upon the state of California the city
of Los Angeles courtesy of the President sending them there.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
What has life been like for you guys in California.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
Jud I have a common sense perspective on this.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
First, no one should be on way mos burning them down.
No one should be engaged in violence or harassment against
law enforcement officers, and no one should be engaged in
violence against anyone. And we need to make sure in California,
our local police and our state officials make sure that
(01:33):
people are safe and that there's zero tolerance for violence
or the.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
Destruction of property.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
At the same time, no one in California was asking
for the National Guard or the Marines, and the President,
in my view, clearly overreached. And I guess people just
want common sense. They want California to take care of this.
The sheriff can, the police can. They don't want the
president sort of grandstanding about it. But they also don't
have sympathy for people, you know, burning down down cars,
(02:00):
and they want politicians to condemn that.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
You know what about the notion because you got a
lot of people on the right that they're looking at
California as a sanctuary state and they think that that's problematic,
And ultimately you have elected officials trying to get in
the way of ICE doing its job and what have you.
All of that conflict has stirred up and flagrantly. So
I might add, what are your thoughts about that as
a representative of the state of California, it being essentially
(02:27):
a sanctuary state, the role that a lot of people
believe that's played in forcing and compelling the President to
take the position that he has taken. You're not a Republican,
you're not a member of the GOP, You're a Democrat.
But obviously you know what you exercise common sense in
a lot of ways, and that's why.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
You should be applauded for it.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
What are your thoughts about that situation in terms of
whether or not the President was right in doing what
he's done in terms of because of what's existing in
the state of California.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
The reason I disagree with what the President did is
it was not like there were people who were willfully.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
Standing in the way of ice enforcement.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
I mean, if that was the case in a large level,
that is very different. But I think what most Americans
want is if you're a violent gang member, if you're
a part of committing violence against anyone and you're here undocumented,
that you should be deported after you have your due process.
I mean, they want you to have new process, and
(03:27):
they're fine, But I don't think what most Americans want
is if you're working in a farm job, if you're
working in a hotel, if you're working in a restaurant,
even if you're undocumented and you're paying taxes, that we
need to rip you away from your families and deport you.
I think they believe you should be having some path
to stay in the country and work. And you know what,
even President Crumb has said that that if you're a
(03:49):
farm worker, if you're in the hospitality industry, if you're
in the restaurant industry, if you're working here, if you're
paying taxes, if you're law abiding, then let's have some.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Path to legalization.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
So I want to pop ut of the Fox on
Fox News saying, Okay, it's for president.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
Why don't we find common ground there?
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Why don't we look to a path to legalization for
hardworking tax payer of people who are undocumented and focus
the ICE resources actually on the violent criminals. That's what
you said you would do when you won the presidency.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
I'll get back to that in terms of let's find
common ground that issue a little bit later on in
this discussion, but for the moment, I want to transition
to the Iran Israel situation that has unfolded Over the
last few days, you introduced a war powers resolution aimed
at preventing Trump from escalating tensions with Iran, co sponsored
with Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massey. The Loan Republican involved
(04:41):
in the effort. How did you two come together on this?
Speaker 4 (04:46):
We both believe that this country has been in too
many endless wars overseas, and by the way, that's been bipartisan. Yes,
George W. Bush got us into the Iraq War.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
That was a mistake, but there were a lot of
Democrats who voted for that war, including people like Senator
Chuck Schumer. Then we got into a war in Afghanistan
for twenty years. Now, I supported the initial strikes on Afghanistan,
but we should not have been there for twenty years.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
Then we struck Libya.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
I mean that was I deeply in my President Obama,
but he was wrong in striking Libya in an unconstitutional way.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
And then we were involved in Yemen.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
We were funding the refueling the Saudi planes to strike Yemen.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
That was unconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
So Massey and I have been consistent this is not
a part of an issue. This is not against President Trouble.
Whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. We're saying two things. One,
you've got to come to Congress first before you go
into a overseas war, because that's what the Constitution requires,
that's what two thirds of the American people want. And Second,
the American people are sick of this. They don't want
(05:48):
more troops in the Middle East. They don't want billions
of dollars in the Middle East. They want the focus
here at home, and they want war to be a
last resort, and that's why we introduced it.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
But Representative Connor, you and I both know, particularly in
the climate that exists in today's in today's politics, there's
no way on Earth you're gonna get anything done if
you got to go to Congress to get something done,
because you're gonna have people vote against you, just because
I mean, there are people that have given indication we're
gonna vote against anything Trump.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
We don't give a damn what it is.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
And obviously on his side, there are gonna be people
that are going to vote for whatever he wants just
to be in his good graces. So what's gonna get
accomplished if you have to go through Congress.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
You do think if there's an actual national security threat,
you will get Congress authorizing. Look you're to tell you Bush,
even though I disagree with the war in the Rod,
he got Congress's authorization to go in there.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
For Afghanistan, he got Congress's authorization to go in there.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Now I'm someone who has introduced a resolution to codify
Trump's executive Order on lowering prescription Drutz. So I'm not
one of these people who says everything Donald Trump is
does is wrong and I'm gonna oppose it.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
I try to look at things issue by issue.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
In fact, when Donald Trump was trying to get a
deal with Iran and others were.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
Criticizing him, Chuck Schumer was criticizing him.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Chuck Schumer was saying, no, don't make a side deal
with Iran, don't trust Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
I was saying, no, let Trump try to get a
deal with Iran.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
But bb Nettanyaw who forced his hand, bb nettan Yew
who bombed Iron. They didn't let the negotiation to play out.
And then I think that Trump has two people on
his shoulders. One of the folks are the Lindsey Graham
saying let's do regime change, Let's keep going Trump tweets
out Hamani should be assassinated, maybe we should have a
RN regime change. But fortunately there's another side to the
(07:36):
MAGA base. Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massey.
They're saying you campaigned on no more wars, and I'm
glad he listened to them. I'm glad he listened to
some of us in Congress and after the strikes he said, Okay,
we're done, and we're gonna get us ceased fire and
no more and we're not going to send more of
our troops and risk getting into an escalation. So I
(07:58):
do think it was important that Congress spoke out, and
I think Congress has to in this case.
Speaker 4 (08:03):
If Congress is a little slow, that's probably good.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
Because I don't think the American people need more money,
more wars overseas.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Representative Connor, I just want to make sure before I
move on to my next question that you understand what
you just said. Right here over the digital airways of YouTube,
with millions of people watching you. You just said that
you actually agree with Steve Bennon, Tucker Colson, and Marjorie
Taylor Green. I wanted are you sure you want to
be on camera, on the record stating.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Such a thing. So I'm just checking. I'm just checking.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Absolutely when it comes to keeping us out of the
Warner Ron. Let me tell you, those folks did more
than some of the people in my own party.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
They were vocal.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
They said that Donald Trump, this is the end of
your presidency. This is a betrayal of your base. And
I give them credit, recredits you. There are a lot
of places we disagree, but you know what, it's even
one of the things that I get criticized for my
own party.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
So you're saying that Stephen Bannon is right on something.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
But I think the American people want folks to just
call it as they see it.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
They don't want us in partisan products.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
When they say something I agree with, I'm going to
be honest and say, yes, I agree with them. When
they say thank something I disagree with, I'll make that
clear too.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
I completely agree with you.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Let me move on to my next question, because you
and Thomas Massey structured the resolution as privileged, which could
allow it to quickly come to a House vote, Republicans
largely align with Trump. As I just stated, how will
you move to War Powers Resolution forward?
Speaker 2 (09:32):
And can you get more Republicans on board.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
I do think we can get more Republicans. We got
Chuck Edwards.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
There are a number of Republicans who do not want
this war. Now, hopefully the ceasefire holds and that we
don't need it to come for a vote if Donald
Trump doesn't threaten any further action. But if the action
is threatened, it should come for a vote. And by
the way, this is not against Donald Trump. It's not
even about Iran. It's simply saying that we need to
(10:01):
listen to the people and listen to people in Congress
before we commit our troops, before we commit young men
into a fight overseas.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
One of the things Josh Holly, another.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Republican who I agree with, he said, look, here's the problem.
Now we've sent more troops into the Middle East. We've
got more young men and women being called up. We're
going to have to go to the Middle East. We
put our troops at risk. We're spending more money on
the Middle East. Why aren't we spending the money in
building manufacturing here, on helping people with health care here,
on childcare here.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
So I hope that they do.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Not remove the privilege of this war prowers resolution, they
allow it to get a vote if it's needed, and
they make it clear that we're not going to allow
presidents to get us into more unless wars.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
Regardless of the party.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
You've repeatedly stated that anti establishment left and right must
find a way to work together. But how much hope
is there really in your mind and in your heart
of that actually happening?
Speaker 3 (10:55):
On some issues there is real hope. Let me give
you three issues. The big problem money in politics. I mean,
you should not have people spending two hundred and fifty
million dollars on a superpack and then getting someone elected.
And here's where I think Democrats get into trouble. We
talk about Elon must spending two hundred and fifty million dollars,
we conveniently forget the billionaires who spend hundreds of millions
(11:18):
of dollars on I At our side, there was more
super pac money for Kamala Harris than there was for
Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
So get rid of all of it. No ban these
super packs.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Why should someone be allowed to only give me thirty
five hundred dollars if they're contributing to a politician, but
then go write a fifty million dollars check to a
super pack. That's one area where we the left and
the right can come together. Second, prescription drugs they're ripping
off the American people. They go charge three times less
(11:47):
in Japan, in England, in Europe than they charge ordering Americans. Now,
I understand, if you're going to sell medicine into Mexico,
into some countries in Africa, developing nations, you.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
Got to charge them less. That's humanitarian.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
But why are we paying three times more than people
in the Western world and in places like Japan. So
Donald Trump comes on, he says, I'm going to take
it to big Pharma. I don't I don't want to
make I want to make sure they aren't charging Americans anymore.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Than they're charging people in other countries.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
I introduced exactly his executive order as a bill with
Republicans and Democrats.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
Let's get a vote on that.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
That's a second area left and right, King County, and third,
focus here on home and don't get us into this
huge wars overseas, a defense budget over fifty six percent
of federal money.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
People don't want that. They wanted money in their communities.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
I think that that is a left right coalition that
is coming together, and then we'll take all the establishment
on both parties.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Any thoughts on all the noise being made by some
Democrats that the bombing by us to attack those nucleo
sites that existed an Iran was a successful venture on
a part of the President of the United States Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Do you have people on the left.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Saying it's not nearly as successful as he's claiming. And
obviously we saw Secretary of Defense Pete haig Seth say
that's absolute nonsense. But also give us some time to
analyze and.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Evaluate the situation.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
We believe it was highly successful and that we've derailed
their nuclear aspirations for a long time to come.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Where do you stand on all of that.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Let's look at the facts.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
First of all, you can't bomb know how Iran knows
how to enrich uranium. Second, President Obama, under the JCPOA
had a verifiable agreement where Iran could not enrich more
than five percent at one facility in the Tans and
there was no violation by the IEA recorded until twenty eighteen.
(13:42):
Then Trump came in, he ripped up the deal and
by the time we were bombing it was sixty percent
enrichment and Foordeaux, but it was also enrichment across the country.
Now we don't know exactly how much damage they've done.
They have done some damage, and I hope it's a
lot of damage. I don't want to Ron to have
a nuclear bomb. It's a national security interest to keep
Iran from having a nuclear bomb. But the problem is
(14:05):
that whether it's six months, a year, two years, we
know from JD Vance that they've kept some of the
enriched nuclear fuel. They can make at least ten new
bombs from there, and we know that they have the
know how in some capacity with centrifuges left to be
enriching uranium. So we're going to need a new agreement
(14:25):
to actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. There's
someone my party to say, well, Donald Trum ripped up
the deal, let's just bash him. I actually don't even
have that view. Fine, he ripped up the deal. You
shouldn't have ripped up the deal. Now he wants to
do diplomacy, I'm all for it. Go win the Nobel
Peace Prize if they're going to give it to you,
Go just get a deal where Iran is actually committing
to inspections where Iran is committing not to have blistic
(14:46):
missiles and let's have diplomacy go forward, not this idea
that we're going to go bomb Iran every years or
two years when they start to develop a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
So you believe that Israel and its efforts have been
justified as it pertains to Iran, considering the fact that
Amas and has black people like that were proxies for
Iran in terms of their terrorist acts. Obviously to Hoodi's
and Yemen, we had to deal with them and what
have you. You don't have any issue whatsoever with Israel
and its influence over America, with America doing some of
(15:20):
the things that it has done. You believe that Israel
was in the right in America, was in the right
in terms of the actions we took.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Is that a fair assessment, Sir No, I.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
Think we were in the wrong. I mean, we should
not have bombed them. We should have engaged in diplomacy.
And I think then now who forced President Trump's hand,
He should not have been bombing Iran, not just I
think it's fair to say that it's in the United
States interest to deny Iran and nuclear weapons.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
The way to achieve that was not through bombing.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
The way to achieve that was through the diplomatic type
of painstaking work that President Obama did, where you got
in agreement where Iran was not going to get rich
more than five percent. Why does NETANYAHUO not go along
with that? Because the reality is Netanyau who has had
a mission, a stated mission of regime change in Iran,
(16:08):
and some of the hawks who want from bombing, they
want a new regimes. I don't think we should have
a regime change war. So I think that y'all was
wrong to bomb and we should have allowed Trump to
continue the negotiation.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
I'm glad there's a ceaspar now he needs.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
To go into negotiation with Iran to prevent them from
getting a nuclear bomb.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
I certainly don't believe that the United States or anybody
else should be engaging in regime change either.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
I totally am with you on that.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
I'm just wondering whether or not Iran is somebody that
you can trust When they've chanted death to Israel, death
to America, you know, a million times over over the years,
are they somebody that you can trust to engage in
diplomacy with. That's what I'm wondering about you really feel
that that that's plausible or that's possible when dealing with
you RN.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
Yeah, trust them, but you can verify.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
You know, the famous Reagan thing was trust but verifyrus
verify terrified.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
That's what Obama did. Look, Obama doesn't get their places. Look.
I criticized Obama on Libya, right, so I'm not just
a partisan here.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
But on the Iran deal, they got a deal where
they were verifying. They had monitors and people in and
I ran it the whole supply chain of uranium and
they were monitoring it up through twenty eighteen and there
was no enrichment beyond five percent. That's not because the
Iranian government is trustworthy. It is because they were basically
being monitored by the IEAE. Now, there was one criticism
(17:31):
of that deal. That deal did not apply to ballistic missiles,
so they limited the enrichment in Iran could still develop
ballistic missiles.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
And what would have.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Been appropriate is for the next president to come in
and say, I'm going to strengthen the JCPOA, I'm going
to work to make sure that they can't develop missiles.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
But we have a framework.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
We know that Iran will negotiate with verification, and that's
the policy we should pursue, not because it's somehow you know,
a week or peace loving is. It's the only thing
that's effective. You got two choices. You can either bomb
them every year the waste American tax dollars and put
our troops at risk, or we can engage in verification
(18:09):
and get the IEAE inspectors there like we had in
the JCPOA.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Three quick questions before I let you get on out
of here because we only got a few minutes left.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
And I thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Representative, kind of really really appreciate talking to you and
seeing you again as well. Number one, I want to
get to something that's knee and dear toy y'all are
you were here in January to discuss the looming TikTok band,
which has been extended for the third time despite a
Bob Potterson law passed by Congress that mandates TikTok's Chinese
parent company Byte Dance sell the app.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Where does that stand now?
Speaker 4 (18:42):
I'm glad that law has been extended.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
We can't kick one hundred and seventy five million people
off of an app. We can't kick off people who
use this app to make a livelihood. You know, they're
one point five million people who are content creators in
America and make a living of that. To put that
in context, there's seventy thousand people who make a living
and steel, and to just shut all of that down,
we'ld be devastating for the economy, not to mention for
(19:08):
free speech.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
So what we should do is keep the app open.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
We should require the company to be an American company,
We should require the data be stored in America. We
should make a criminal for any algorithmic interference by the Chinese.
The president is trying to do that, and I actually
support that effort. Place it's another place where I think
that Trump is doing the right thing by keeping the
(19:32):
app open.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Transitioning to another topic, What the hell is this I'm
hearing about? California legislators are proposing a ban on online
fantasy sports.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
What is the I mean, what are your thoughts about that?
What do they do?
Speaker 4 (19:46):
So I'm opposed to that.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Look, I'm never going to get into a sports discussion
with stephen A.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
But you know I was on a fantasy I did fantasy.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Teams growing up. You know, I grew up a Philly's fan.
Philadelphia fan. I used to collect baseball cards. We used
to have a team, my team. You almost never won
my fantasy team. And you know, I never quit quite
figured out whether you need to graft the quarterback or
the running back first.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
And you know, everyone else is looking at points.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
And it always amazed me that you'd be watching these
games and folks would be less concerned.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
About, you know, whether the Eagle's gonna get a win
or forty nine ers were gonna win.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
They just be cheering for the like the random offensive
linemen because they had them on their fantasy team.
Speaker 5 (20:24):
But that's you know that, that's the fun of sports.
Like when you talk about dumb things the Democratic Party does,
it's like, let's go ban fantasy sports and then let's
pay twenty million dollars to understand why we're losing young men.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
I mean, come on, and you wonder why we're in
the state we are as a party. It's it's laughable.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Well, I will say this, and this is my last question.
Can't say that in the state of New York or
the city of New York, New York City, we saw
Zoran or Mom, Donnie beat former governor of New York,
three term New York of New York, mister Andrew Cuomo.
I mean he beat him in the Democratic primaries just
a couple of days ago.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
What was your reaction, what was your thoughts about that?
Speaker 3 (21:11):
It says one simple message, which is people care about
the cost of living. You know, everyone is focused on
what was Zooran's position on Israel, What was his position
on the cultural issues, what was his position on ice?
You know what Zoe Ran talked about. He said rent
is too high. He said that you can't afford your groceries.
He said that I understand why people voted for Trump
(21:32):
because they can't afford to buy a house and the
cost of living, they.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
Aren't making ends meet. And what I'm going to do is.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
Provide actual policies to lower the cost of living for folks,
to make New York affordable again.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
That's all he talked about.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
He had videos out there going to street vendors telling
you about why it costs ten bucks for chicken over
rice a jalal Neil as opposed to eight bucks, and
what he was going to do to bring the cost
of living down. And so what this tells me is
the Democrats need an economic message. We need a message
telling about how we're going to deal with the affordability
crisis in this country. We need a message about how
(22:09):
we're gonna create good paying jobs in America through technology
and with AI coming, we need a message about how
we're gonna build things in this country.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
But representative, he's a self proclaimed socialist. He was endorsed
by AOC, amongst others, and we all know that a
lot of people in a general election for the presidency
sort of turned against that kind of rhetoric, and that's
partially why Donald Trump was voted for. I don't think
that's deniable. So do you think this is something that
(22:39):
could have a profoundly positive impact on a Democratic party?
Speaker 2 (22:44):
When his message, although it.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Was you know, you know, it was articulated very very well,
I might add, is that the kind of thing that's
gonna win you votes in the midterms and a general
election in twenty twenty eight for the presidency.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
If we take the best of him and discard the
areas which we disagree with.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
That's the stephen A approach, right.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
I heard you on one podcast saying you put alc
in your cabinet not because you agree with everything, because
you would take her good ideas and you would reject
the bad ideas. And you'd have some Republican and you'd
take their good ideas and reject the bad ideas.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
That's what people want in this country.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
So Zoran has good ideas about how to bring food
prices down, or if he has good ideas about how
to deal with rents, let's take those. And you can
still say that we should absolutely condemn chance like globalize
the Intafada, and we should recognize that Israel has the
right to exist as a Jewish democratic state. The problem
in our politics is we've become so black and white,
(23:39):
as if you have to agree with something when somebody
won everything. And I think what this country is hungry
for his leadership that starts to bring people together, that
takes the best ideas, whether it's from a Steve Bannon
or a Zoran and says we're going to look at
the best with people have to offer and offer a
unifying vision of this country.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Very last question to you, very last question you the
way you articulate your message. I mean, you're the kind
of person that the people should be listening to, more
should be hearing from more, to be quite honest with you.
Haven't heard your name for the governor see to California.
Haven't heard your name when it comes to a presidential ambition, Sir,
(24:22):
should you be pursuing those things?
Speaker 2 (24:24):
And if not, why not when you seem to be
speaking to a vast majority of American citizens.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
Well, I was promoting you, Steve, and I was just
trying to get onto your ticket.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Don't do that.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
That's what That's what the campaign. But they look, I
think we need more independent voices. That's why I liked
what you were out there saying. I think we need
Let me say the three things I think we need
in this country. Well, do we need people are going
to call out both parties if they are right or wrong,
not just being our partisan tribes. Second, we need people
focused on the economy. My district has fourt trillion dollars.
(25:01):
It's even five companies over a trillion dollars. The AI
Revolution is going to produce huge wealth, but we can't
be a nation half prosperous and half in decline.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
We need people who.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Are going to figure out what this AI revolution, how
we're going to create good paying jobs and economic opportunity
in places that have been left out. And third, we
got to have people are going to be on Team America.
We're going to try to bring this country together, not
be partisan. You know, I'll end with this point. I
voted against, I led the charge against Trump on the
Iran War Powers Resolution, and then I voted to table
(25:34):
the impeachment. And all on the left, some people say, oh,
you're a hypocrite, You're a hypocrite. I'm saying, well, there
are other presidents who have had committed unconstitutional things.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
I don't want to make this partisan.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
I want to figure out how we bring the country
together in a big coalition. So I don't know whether
my cycle politics can win a particular primary, but I
do know it's where the American people are to be independent,
to call balls and strikes, not to be just reflexively partisan.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
Representative Rocanna, seventeenth District of California. Always an honor and
a privilege to talk to you. So I really enjoyed
being on real time with Bill Marer with you. I
really enjoyed our communication since that time, and I have
no doubt we will continue to communicate with one another.
You are always welcome on this show, sir. Thank you
so much for taking time out of your business schedule
to come on. Really appreciate it. You take care of yourself.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
Thank you. It's my honor.
Host
Stephen A. Smith
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
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