And, This Is Charlie Kirk

Gavin sits down with 31-year-old conservative activist Charlie Kirk, founder and president of the right-wing student organization Turning Point USA.

IG: @GavinNewsom
TikTok: @GavinNewsom

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
This is Gavin Newsom and this is Charlie Kirk. By
the way, what brings you to California? Your favorite state?

Speaker 2 (00:14):
It is this thing's falling. It is my favorite state
in the Union. You're doing such a great job here.
By the way, No, I'm honored to be on the show.
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
And you were just down at USC.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
I was at USC yesterday, drew a big crowd. By
the way.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
I knew you were at USC early because my niece,
who's gradually.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
She was going with the Maga hat on.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
She was by the way, I do have to watch,
but she was down there and she was like, she said,
you never know, these kids are going to the right.
I'm aware, she said, this crowd's crazy. He said. She
said she had and the only reason said she would
have said it perhaps otherwise, but she knew you were
coming on the worst part though, Charlie no bes true story.
Literally last night, trying to put my son to bed,
He's like, no, Dad, I just what time? What time

(00:55):
is Charlie going to be here? What time? And I'm like, dude,
you're in school. Tomorrow's thirteen. He's like, no, no, no, this
this morning wakes up it sixs up. Then he's like,
I'm coming. I'm like, he literally would not leave the house.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Did you let him to take off school?

Speaker 1 (01:07):
No? He did, of course not. He's not here for
a good reason. But the point is the.

Speaker 2 (01:10):
Canceled school for like two years on.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
The point is the point, which is you are making
a damn dead Thanks.

Speaker 2 (01:17):
I'm kidding, no, but I know, and I but.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
I appreciate that. I mean, it's the reason you're here
because I think people need to understand your success, your influence,
what you've been up to, and the fact that you're
on these college campus stores. And to your point, then
you just open up. I mean you're like, ask me.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
Anything anything, Challenge me, challenge me whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
When did this whole thing? When did you start putting
us together?

Speaker 2 (01:39):
I've been at this for thirteen years and it's been
a wild movement, really accelerated once President Trump kind of
came on the scene, right around i'd say twenty twenty one.
We had a goal, could we move the youth vote
ten points over ten years? And when it was.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
It literally you sat down and put that new miracle.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
Together, like, can we move at ten points over ten
years ish? You know, approximate? Because our whole hypothesis was,
and we you know, we did this alongside President Trump
and his great team, was that this demographic is disproportionately
to the Democrat side. We believe Democrats were taking them
for granted. We think that your side had no message
whatsoever and an ideological monopoly. We saw some of the

(02:18):
fault lines there, and to President Trump's credit, he also
harmonized with the strategy by going on podcasting and using TikTok.
But yeah, I mean, we did it in four years,
not ten, large in part thanks to you guys.

Speaker 1 (02:30):
And we'll go get to that, and I sincerely get
to that because I want, you know, I want to
stress test as some of those fault lines as relates
to the reality of our party and where we are today. Yeah, Visa,
you you're ascendency, not just individually as an organization, But
where was that sort of moment for you? Because it's interesting.
I mean, you're such a young guy. So it's not
a deep biography here. It's not like twenty years in
the wilderness writing his first book, getting a TV show

(02:52):
that was canceled, coming back. It's more just this immediacy
of ascendancy, was it. I mean, were you always you're
sort of born and bred with an ideological mindset. Are
you more open minded? And you start to realize a
lot of bsos out there.

Speaker 2 (03:08):
I've always been conservative, obviously grown in that over the
last ten ishu years was more libertarian, I'd say in
the first couple of years, as to be expected as
I got married and have kids, become more conservative. But no, look,
just one of the things we saw in the last
couple of years that the Democrats completely ignored and your
side was basically not acknowledging it was happening, was the

(03:30):
crisis that young people were experiencing that I mean, just one,
this is the first time in America's history that a
thirty year old is going to have it worse off
than their parents. It's a breakdown of the social compact.
They are the most alcohol addicted, most drug addicted, most suicidal,
most depressed, most medicated generation and history, and the message
that was largely being fed to a lot of young
people was lower your expectations. You're not going to have

(03:53):
the same American dream that your parents would have. And
we saw this as an opportunity, especially with young men,
and again it's got ridiculed a lot by the press
that oh, you know, they're creating this manosphere thing. Look,
they're half of the population and necessary for any society
and civilization to succeed, which is to have both strong
men and strong women. And we went about that in
a very unique and creative way. And again the president

(04:18):
became a cultural phenomenon where no matter what you threw
at this guy, he rosebuve and you would even have
to give him credit. I mean, basically seven hundred years
in federal prison. You know, States tried to kick him
off the ballot. I know you spoke out against it,
but California did have a faction that tried to kick
him off the ballot, right, And despite all of that,
of course being shot, and that was kind of the
crescendo of all of it. He kind of became this

(04:39):
figure of an American comeback story. So he personified what
a lot of young people, especially young men, wanted back
in their politics, which was an ascendant rebel attitude against
these institutions that have failed them so miserably.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
It's interesting, So what would you keep saying we, which
is interesting, and that's the organization that you created to yes.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
We would be like conservative movement. Maga, But yes, I
have turning point you say a turney point action Charlie
Kirk Show. But when I'm saying we, I mean more
specifically kind of those of us that saw this political
moment three or four years ago.

Speaker 1 (05:13):
But you were at this even before then, correct, Yeah,
So when did you when did you decide to sort
of just shift your gear? I mean you were working
for another Kirk for campaign Mark Kirk. So you had
a political obviously had strong political leanings or at least
desire to sort of be in the political sphere, but
not in elected office necessarily. You don't want to be
behind the scenes.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
I mean, like the biography has been written about a
million times, but I mean didn't didn't go to college,
wanted to go to West Point, didn't get in. I'm
an entrepreneur. Love it started this organization and it became
far more successful than I ever could have realized. And
the kind of as we started to grow the organization,

(05:53):
I recognized that there was an ideological imbalance on a
lot of these college campuses, and we wanted to go
about trying to offer a counterpoint of conservative you know,
pro freedom, pro liberty, you know America first Udy, and
you saw the.

Speaker 1 (06:06):
College campuses as sort of the underbelly of the opportunity
or is it just more just experiential in terms of
your own sort of animus towards me.

Speaker 2 (06:14):
Well, I mean, you have a sitting population about twenty
million kids that are there for four years.

Speaker 1 (06:19):
There's that.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
And also again you'd nowhere to go about up. I
mean seventy percent when we started in twenty twelve, seventy
five percent of kids on college campuses would vote for Democrats. Now,
fast forward today the saus election cycle. Democrats lost the
youth vote in Michigan, nearly lost it in Wisconsin, nearly
lost in Arizona. So our goal was, hey, let's move
at ten points. We moved at thirteen points. And this

(06:40):
is important for your audience to know and for Democrats
to reckon with of which I see no signs that
Democrats care at all that they're losing the next generation.
We're drawing record crowds or ranks are expanding. The most
support that President Trump has is voters under thirty. Sixty
percent of voters under thirty support President Trump. It's according
to Rasmus. And you might say that's a little rich.
It might be, but it's directionally true. And one of

(07:02):
the main reasons that this has all been happening is
that baby boomers have actually seen their wealth increased the
last four years. They don't buy into this whole idea
that our institutions are broken or that they're in need
of massive bottom up revolutionary change. And we see that
actually Kamala Harris did three points better with baby boomers
than she did in twenty twenty. And the number one

(07:22):
story that you know, James Carville, who everyone takes seriously
for some reason, should have been saying is like, all
Kamala Harris had to do was just do the same
with younger voters that Joe Biden did in twenty twenty,
and she would be president right now.

Speaker 1 (07:32):
And remind us what Joe Biden did in twenty twenty.

Speaker 2 (07:35):
Thirteen points better in terms of just like America, kind
of a combination of exit polling. So it's really it's
a difficult science to pinpoint.

Speaker 1 (07:43):
So that goes back then, I mean to your point.
In order to do that, you've got to stand for something,
You've got to assert yourself, you got to have a strategy,
and you got to implement it.

Speaker 2 (07:50):
You also have to not believe crazy stuff.

Speaker 1 (07:52):
And not believe crazy I mean, and so for you,
I mean it's interesting just you know, this last week,
I guess you were at USC. You were at the
University of Florida, thousands and thousands of folks. You get
to your point, your crowds are growing. Twenty twelve, where
were you were coming in and people were I mean
you were taking I mean, yeah, you were like getting threats.
I mean you still get tons of threats, yep, But
it was I mean, what was it like just to

(08:14):
paint a picture of you walk into college that.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
Had no money, no connections, and no idea what I
was doing. And yeah, I mean we were I didn't
even have a social media account. I mean, it was
just the ultimate startup.

Speaker 1 (08:25):
And would you do say I'm available and you started
at this sort of debate.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
No, it was even more scrappy. I would literally show
up to u W. Madison with a card table and
a big cardboard sign saying debate me. You know, like
here's some provostery twenty something. You know, I wouldn't even
film it. It was I was eighteen or nineteen.

Speaker 1 (08:39):
Eighteen or nineteen and what you just what by the
way where does that and sincerely to be able to
debate anybody at any time, anywhere in that environment. It's
just just I mean just you can you can say
it's just confidence or it's just absolutely I mean narcissist.
What is it?

Speaker 2 (08:56):
I mean just or just do I hope it's not
the other, But no, I mean I guess it would be.
I mean, at the most charitable reading, it could be confidence.
It also just be that I wanted to try and
challenge the predominant view. I always loved debate and this agreement.
I love the kind of spar and yeah, I also
find it to be exciting, and I wanted to try to,

(09:17):
you know, figure out where my idea is actually that
good and to kind of draw stress tests.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
Yeah, ten x better than you were in twenty twelve
at the format probably probably, And you study it where
you just participate it. I mean what I when you
look at the old great debates or you're reading debating books, you're.

Speaker 2 (09:32):
Watching yeah, and I mean less about debating. I mean,
debating is a practice that can really only be refined,
you know, with lots of routine and reps and repetition.
Just more about studying, you know, the great books, philosophy, right,
all those.

Speaker 1 (09:47):
Things, and so you and you make a point prior
to that, I mean you to the point you never
you know, went to community college.

Speaker 2 (09:53):
And I didn't even graduate community college, and you.

Speaker 1 (09:55):
An't even community which is great. By the way, I
was going to college and marine. I got lucky, got
a baseball coach that called me and allowed me to
get to four year university. I was joking with you
before we started nine to sixty SAT. I asked you
about your SAT.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
To the act to the act, which proves two.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
Things, how young you are and how different things were
you were. You grew up in Illinois.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
I grew up in which Midwest was traditionally more of
an act.

Speaker 1 (10:18):
But this has been a point of pride for you
that you didn't do a four year degree.

Speaker 2 (10:22):
Because I represent most of the country. Is that actually
still the majority of the country does not have a
college degree. And if I may, you know bluntly critique
the Democrat Party. You guys have become so college credentialed
and educated that you guys snobbishly look on the muscular
class of this country, the people that kept things afloat
and running during COVID and yeah, I mean the majority

(10:43):
of the country didn't go to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Caltech,
or cal Berkeley. Right, and the Republican Party has become
far more representative of them, large in part thanks to Trump.
But yeah, and look I say it with some pride
also because as an entrepreneur, I tried to build something, right,
not just zeco credential.

Speaker 1 (11:01):
Love that and what And they're what eleven million folks,
there are million jobs out there. You make this point
all the time.

Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yeah, open jobs that don't require college.

Speaker 1 (11:07):
Do not require college degree. So when you say, and
it's interesting because there's sort of that critique of the
Democratic Party that we are captured by the sort of
college elite in what respect I mean stress tests that
for a second. Allow me to what specifically are you
referencing in that.

Speaker 2 (11:24):
Your voters, Your voters have become nearly I mean unan.
The higher you go up the education ladder, the higher
the correlation it is that you vote for the Democrat Party.
And it's almost a one to one with PhD. It's
like seventy five percent for master's degrees, and it's sixty
five percent.

Speaker 1 (11:38):
Why why do you think that's the case, what are
the issues that sort of are identifying.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
The line in that respect, the sloppy analysis like, oh,
they're smarter, therefore they must be Democrats, right, And I
think that's silly and insane, but an insulting I totally agree.
The more, the deeper, and more profound analysis is that
a lot of ideological bubbles that exist on these college campuses.
They are homogeneous, not heterodoxs when it comes to what
ideas are expressed. And then secondly, the value system that

(12:05):
you leave on college campuses is high trust of institutions.
So the biggest divide in America is not right versus left.
It's whether or not you generally trust institutions or you
don't trust institutions. And this has been largely inverted the
last twenty years. So back in the early two thousands,
Democrats were low trust of institutions, iraq war, anti Bush,
anti NSA, anti Patriot Act, and that's when you guys
had a lot of activist spark and energy. That has

(12:26):
been completely inverted. So the right is now low trust
of institutions, where the left is high trust institutions. We're
the ones that challenge the COVID vaccine. We're the ones
that think that public health authorities might have lied to
us during COVID. We're the ones that don't necessarily believe
the government when it says that we should keep on
sending money to Ukraine. Again, that's a general rule. There
are some exceptions to that. But when you go to college,
you are trained to trust the experts, trust the scientists,

(12:49):
trust the people that are leaders of authority, and the
Democrat Party is largely the gatekeepers of that kind of
ideological and intellectual regime.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
It's interesting and so from your perspective, I mean, do
you advocate for people to sort of open up a
worldview that is life without a four year degree and
all the opportunities that present themselves anew in that respect,
are you arguing for the disestablishment the end of higher education?

Speaker 2 (13:16):
I think it's going to happen, no matter what I mean,
And in ten years, artificial intelligence is going to change everything,
and I don't know what these four year degrees are
actually doing to prepare these kids for that. But now,
as far as like I'm not, I mean my advocating
for the end of the pursuit of learning, of course not.
That's one of my big critiques is that at a
lot of these schools, they're not pursuing what is good,
true and beautiful. It's become the oppression Olympics and a

(13:36):
weaponized complaint seminar of people sitting in the circle and
finding out who's been offended the most that day. That's
not doing anybody any good, no, and in fact, it
creates a very weak political movement, which I think plays
into one of the reasons why we were able to
steamroll you guys back in November, is that once there's
a little opposition against a group of people that have
never actually been you know, had to build the muscle

(13:58):
mass of a very difficult and unpredictable world. Whereas those
of us that are conservatives, we're insulted all the time.
So think about the experience of a kid on a
college campus. They say they're graded differently because of their views.
They may or may not be right. I think they are,
but they're definitely in the ideological minority. Right, you wear
a Trump pat on a college campus. At least until
we came around, that was like a big sign of

(14:18):
cultural rebellion. So you have two choices. You can either
stop fighting for what you believe in, or you become
really tough, and you create that muscle that allows you
to then carry and shoulder a heavier burden.

Speaker 1 (14:30):
And so just and I don't want to blame the
issues of the establishment plot called higher education. It's some
have not you referred to it, though maybe you align yourself.

Speaker 2 (14:39):
I wrote a whole book called the college scamp cause,
so it's.

Speaker 1 (14:43):
Sort of it's sort of stress testing that in the
context of some would argue the contra argument is, you know,
a million dollars more in lifetime earnings, more likely to
get married, less likely to get divorced, more likely to
be civically engaged, and longer life spans with college degrees.
And you would say.

Speaker 2 (15:01):
All of those is true. It's just let's not everyone
that goes to college graduates the national graduated. Yeah, forty
one percent drop out, exactly right. Also, half the kids
that graduate college will not even end up using their
degree when it comes to the affiliated job. So the
numbers are true. At the highest incomes, about ten percent
of kids that go to college stretch out the averages
to be really really high. And so, for example, you

(15:22):
go to cal Tech to study computer engineering and applied AI.
Next man, you're crushing it right, You go to cal
to go study North African lesbian poetry, Like, is that
an actual degree there? You tell me, I don't know.
I mean we fund in front of the fact that
you don't know.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
I don't know every single day.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
I know it's the largest, but it's if the fact
it's a maybe we got some problems, well.

Speaker 1 (15:45):
The fact that a lot of people have explored different disciplines,
like that's fine, it's.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
Just the taxpayer shouldn't have to fund it.

Speaker 1 (15:51):
Well, yeah, I mean increasingly the individuals are funding is
you know, it's relates to the talk about the inversion
of how we fund education. And by the way, just FYI,

(16:12):
having just put together a career master plan. We had
a master plan in the state of California that created
the uc systems, the CSUS in the community college system
half century ago. We've applied the same discipline to a
career master plan in the state of California. And so
I'm completely aligned with you in terms of a focus
and energy there and looking at pre apprentice apprenticeships, looking
not even apprenticeships in the traditional sense, but valuing and

(16:35):
highlighting and signaling the value of a life without a degree.
Et cetera. So I'm not as far off on this
as you are. That said, I've just I've got to
admire what you've been able to do, not to weaponize,
but to organize on these college campuses. A different point
of view. And again let's talk about some of that
when you go to these college campuses. I love watching

(16:57):
your TikTok, which is next level, and clearly that's expressed
by my thirteen year old son.

Speaker 2 (17:01):
I want to meet this guy. Yeah, I actually it's
coming to a turning point event this summer Tampa, Florida
Student Action Summit.

Speaker 3 (17:08):
Actually, because by the way, if you should be concerned,
but let me say here, here is why I'm concerned,
because you have expressed that I should be concerned as
a Democrat that we're getting Oh we're getting blobbard.

Speaker 1 (17:19):
Yes, that you've you've figured something out.

Speaker 2 (17:22):
It's not me. The president first deserves the credit.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
But why no, no, hold on, you were at this
before Trump was trying to know, but he was a
Democrat back in twenty eleven.

Speaker 2 (17:30):
The president deserves huge credit. And I just have to
say that as an obligatory thing, because without him, our
Mason would be small. And you can appreciate that. In politics,
you have to appreciate the person.

Speaker 1 (17:39):
Who you for you, that's what you sort of attached.

Speaker 2 (17:42):
It was also just the catalyst. It was a cultural
moment that just opened us up.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
But wait, but go back just on that, because I'm
curious in twenty twelve, thirteen fourteen, who were you identifying
with From the time.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
I mean, I was more like, as I mentioned, Ron
Paul Ran Paul, Libertarians, that's where the energy really was, right,
and then President Trump comes on again. I was still
very early in my political journey. So you're looking up
a lot. You know, who's the top voices, what do
you believe? Why do you believe it?

Speaker 1 (18:08):
Yeah? So more the libertarian friend.

Speaker 2 (18:10):
It was more and I still have some libertarian leanings
on something.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
And when Trump came down that escalator, you're like, oh.

Speaker 2 (18:14):
Not day one, No, I was. I was mystified at first.
Why are you saying this guy's there's no chance? It's funny.
I actually sent out a tweet very like twenty eleven
when I was high school saying Trump should run for office.
But I was not mystified. Negatively, I was like, can
this really happen? Can a guy that has no political experience,
come down an escalator. He challenged the whole establishment.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
Right, But you didn't expect Donald Trump to come down
the escalator and start talking about illegal aliens or you know,
I disagree with it. What you didn't?

Speaker 2 (18:41):
Yeah, I get that being and again this is well docmanted.
Early in my journey, I underestimated the silent majority that
really wanted a rebalancing of the American political landscape.

Speaker 1 (18:52):
So interesting, So Trump then became the catalysts, and so
turning point became sort of next level. You're a first
start that's going oranize around that turning point.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
Action becomes the political arm. So one is more educational,
one is more political. And we did ballot chasing in
Arizona and Wisconsin. We were successful in that alongside the
Trump campaign. Arizona was the best performing swing state.

Speaker 1 (19:15):
And you're not modeling yourself at anything because the flatness
of the surrounding terrain, meaning we're the Democrats, had other organizing.

Speaker 2 (19:22):
We were modeling off of some of the ballot chasing
ballot harvesting practices of the left. But I mean there's
again that's a self limiting principle. You can't ballot chase
if no one wants to vote for you. So, I mean,
you could have the best organizers in the world and
you have two thousand people chasing ballots in Arizona and
you're runn Kamala Harris in Arizona. You actually was. And

(19:44):
what we ended up tracking through our data is that
the Democrats were chasing for us, is that they were
chasing low propensity Hispanics, thinking that they were all for
Kamala And in fact, we were looking at the precinct
numbers of areas we didn't hit that moved like twenty
points in Trump's direction. We're like, well, thank you very much,
ca a campaign for getting out and chasing our ballots.
And you know, for all this, these Hispanic men that

(20:05):
are mechanics, we appreciate it. Thanks for making sure that
we also won Dave McCormick's Senate seat, right right, So again,
chasing is only one part of the like, Democrats, of course,
are better organizers than us. I mean, it's in your blood.
Barack Obama is a community organizer. We make fun of it.
It's who you guys are. You guys have labor as
a backbone, clipboard and tennis shoes.

Speaker 1 (20:24):
However, labor less and less we can talk about for.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
Sure and moment. Yeah, but what we always felt that
we had as we felt we had better ideas and
a better message and all that the idea was, can
we combo a little bit of organizing practices with a
mass movement, which is how you get a national popular
vote victory and an overwhelming electoral landslide.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
And so what do you see just? I mean I
sort of talked about the flatness of the surrounding terrain,
meaning the Democratic parties party in some respect as it
relates to appreciate your point about organizing, but also corrosion
versus you know, sort of forcing people to vote versus
an enthusiasm and a desired actually proactively.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
That actually that has a backfiring effective.

Speaker 1 (21:03):
I totally I appreciate that. And so what what do
you see right now? I mean, you know, I think
you talked about it the other day. A lot of
folks were talking about that Carvil article where he talked
about over rollover in SNCA.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
I think it was a strategic.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
Retreat, right that we need to come back. Trump's starting
to plode a numbers are getting soft, and this was
even before the tariff issues et cetera, and then come
back and strike when hot, and I immediately nobody else
thought about you, who's just twenty four to seven flooding
the zone. Back to my thirteen year old owning this
space every day, getting a convert every day, picking up
one to ten thousand folks, continuing the momentum coming out

(21:41):
of this damn election. And then I'm thinking about, we're
going to stand back and watch you run circles around
us for six months, the next two or three years,
waiting for the moment to finally strike. Strike struck me
as not necessarily the best advice. And it's not a
knock on Carvil, who I have deep respect for.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
That's okay, so I don't have to he was He's
right about one thing in the last forty years. It's
economy stupid, and boys, he spent that He spent down
that one line pretty amazingly. But yeah, look, I'll say,
I don't want to make this about Carville, but like, yeah,
I hope you guys retreat you kind of like that
for us. I mean, if there's no opposition, there's no
arctivist activist spark, if like you guys are posting these
cringe videos on social media are the ones I don't

(22:22):
know this like har harmonious thing of like twenty two
senators all saying the same thing like that, Yeah, I
didn't like it. What do you go ahead, go do
more of that? What are you doing?

Speaker 1 (22:30):
But what do you do? Seriously, Charlie Kirk, give us
some of.

Speaker 2 (22:32):
The better ideas governor, Like for example, I mean, like
if you want to, like, you have an opportunity to, like,
you know, run to the middle and see this man's
obviously you're talking to me about people, So like you
right now should come out and be like, you know what,
the young man who's about to win the state championship
in the long jump in female sports, that's that that
shouldn't happen. You as the governor should step out and
say no, no, And I appreciate and but like, would

(22:53):
you do something like that? Would you say no men
in female sports?

Speaker 1 (22:56):
Well, it's I think it's an issue of fairness. I
completely agree with you on that. It is an issue affairs.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
So it's deeply would you speak out against this young man,
baby Hernandez, who right now is going to win the
state championship in the long time, I can see you
wrestling with it.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
No, I'm not wrestling. I'm not relaction with the fairness issue.
I totally agree with you. By the way, as someone
with four kids, you got to think two daughters, right,
two daughters and a wife that went God forbid to Stanford,
played on the junior national soccer team, and a guy
who got into college only because I was left handed
and could throw baseball a little bit or hit the
ball for a little bit. So I revere sports, and

(23:31):
so the issue of fairness is completely legit. And I
saw that the last couple of years. Boy did I
saw how you guys were able to weaponize that.

Speaker 2 (23:39):
Issue at another weaponize Don't that's that's.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
Webinized, maybe Pajordan of You're right, but you were able
to shine a light on highlight it in a way
that frankly, there are not that many we're talking about.
I think two, five hundred and ten thousand. No, No,
but I just didn't realize.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
It's eight hundred ninety medals in trophies that we know
of in the last five years. That's a lot.

Speaker 1 (23:57):
No. So I'm gonna let me step back saympletely fair
on the issue of fairness. I completely agree. So that's
easy to call out the unfairness of that. There's also
a humility and a grace. You know that that these
poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety
and depression, and the way that people talk down to
vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard

(24:17):
time with as well. So both things I can hold
in my hand. How can we address this issue with
the kind of decency that I think you know it's
inherent in you, but not always expressed on the issue. No,
I get it. At the same time, deal with.

Speaker 2 (24:31):
The unfair you're asked. You asked a good faith question,
like how do we Democrats get out of the wilderness? Yeah,
this one is an eighty twenty issue in your time's poll, right,
that's all.

Speaker 1 (24:38):
I agree with you.

Speaker 2 (24:39):
We're getting crushed on and like crush and you have
an opportunity in the state to be like, Look, I
have a heart for Aby Hernandez. I have a heart
for the San Jose volleyball player. Yeah, let's give them compassion.
But it's not fair. Is just for like a woman's
entire woman's sports. I agree you know, by.

Speaker 1 (24:53):
The way I agree with you, I agree with you,
and it's interesting I stress tested this child. I was wondering,
I said, you know, in California, and I've been a
leader in the LGBT few places as face as you know,
back in two thousand and four, was marrying same sex couples.
And I know we have different opinion on marriage equality,
and so I've been at this for years and years.
I take a back seat to no one, But I
was actually on the issue of sports, which in the

(25:13):
last few years has just exploded. Trying to understand and
understand the ten athletes in the NC TWOA five hundred
and ten thousand athletes, but ten athletes, but how profound
And even my own friend Cohort people saying, the hell
is going on? Why aren't you calling this out? When
did this happen? So in two thousand turns out in
twenty fourteen, years before I was governor, there was a

(25:34):
law established that established the legal principles that allow the
allow trans athletes and women's sports. But the issue of
fairness is completely jit. So I completely align with you,
and we've got to own that and we've got to
acknowledge it. I don't say that through the prism of
politics because you disagree with same sex marriage on principle,
and so I'm not And by the way, I value

(25:56):
the fact that you're not trying to walk away from
that principle because elector I'm in the minority of that. Yeah,
and I don't want to walk away from this principle
because of electoral But it is an issue of fairness,
and I think Democrats, I.

Speaker 2 (26:11):
Think that the I wish that we would have done
this podcast last week because well, because the US Senate
just vote. Every Democrat voted against that bill. And I'm
just telling you, like again, I'm not one to give
Governor new some advice. You guys are giving us an
eighty twenty issue that is just permeating the country. It's
and is such an uffront to our senses. And you
look at these videos, Governor, because it's not just that

(26:32):
it's okay you read an article about it, but these
young men that are you know, are in these sports.
They're throwing around girls, and it is an issue of fairness.
But it goes to a broader arch narrative there, which
is important now and I want to hear this, which
is this that that that you that the Democrats, you
guys will tend to view an incident through an oppressor
of press Blens. Yeah, it's your training. It comes from college,

(26:53):
it comes from and we as conservatives tend to view
things through right or wrong, or just or unjust, and
the country is going far more in our direction and
away from your direction, because the problem with oppress or
oppressed is eventually you run out of oppressors and you
start creating them out of thin air, and you start
trying to say, well, these people must to be blamed

(27:14):
for all of our problems. Or that's where you get
a lot of the let's just say a lot of
For example, there's Wall Street Journal editorial like when will
the white men shut up or stop complaining? That does
no good for anybody? Right, So what I'm what I'm
getting at, though, is it's a worldview difference, right, And.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
So that is why the issue is so much more powerful.

Speaker 2 (27:33):
Of course it is because, but it's also pattern recognition.
It's pattern recognition of a Democrat party that post twenty
twenty decided to go all and we call it woke,
you might call it you know, justice or whatever it is,
but it's so outside of what we would consider traditional
Americans norms and customs. A Democrat strategist would say, oh, Charlie,

(28:04):
you're weaponizing stuff, not you, but like that's a typical,
typical thing. But the most effective ad of this election cycle,
the most effective ad, you know what it.

Speaker 1 (28:11):
Is, Yeah, and devastating. Trump's for you, She's for them.

Speaker 2 (28:15):
And devastating again in the state, devastating and devastation.

Speaker 1 (28:19):
She didn't even react to it, which was even.

Speaker 2 (28:21):
More Why was devastating? Number one, it was the trans
issue that was just you know, monopolizing.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
And this was this was even more challenging because there's
issues of people that are incarcerated and illegal and illegal
incarcerated individuals getting taxpayer funded yes, and gender reassignments agents
that is a ninety ten not an age, right.

Speaker 2 (28:40):
And then she's like enthusiastically defending dragging, being like, I'm
all for this, all all for this.

Speaker 1 (28:46):
And then you had the video that it was a
validator brutal. Yeah, and so tensi millions brutal. And then
the targeted focus from the from the Trump campaign next.

Speaker 2 (28:55):
Level, and then Charlotte Ma comes out on Breakfast Club
is like, this is insane and they ran it on
in a football brilliant yes, And so you're trying to
reach men. It's it's not like, it's not this a
brilliant campaign.

Speaker 1 (29:06):
Commercial was brutal. DEBI doesn't require the way we were
running around just in the for the what the hell
it's worth for you? She was ag at the time
she was addressing the issue of a legal settlement. The
courts were interviewed, still happening, but she had the video
where in the video she was obviously expressed support and
so she was being a cheerleader for a very popular thing.

(29:28):
It was, and it was it was a great ad.
And I say that lightly.

Speaker 2 (29:34):
This is political and I want to make sure this
it's not just that this was like the Willie Horton
ad of the twenty twenty four. It wasn't just like
a leatwater brilliance. It's that it reflected truth that the
voters felt. Yeah, I appreciate it, and that because because
voters felt as if their country was slipping away. Now
you have the Democrats have a choice. You could say
to those people you're racist, your Nazis, your fascists, you're terrible,

(29:56):
or you can listen and be like, why is it
that a steel worker in Pittsburgh who's voted Democrat. His
entire life is voting for Trump despite all of you know,
the stuff that's been thrown at him.

Speaker 1 (30:07):
Yeah, and rhetoric that he's thrown it at us.

Speaker 2 (30:10):
Yes, context, but it's it's it's a pattern, and the
trans thing is just one of those things. But the
second element was also what we saw under Joe Biden,
was if you came to the southern border from any
country and you spoke the magic words, you could go
to any city You're choosing right CBP one border app
And all of a sudden, that steel worker in Pittsburgh's like,

(30:31):
why am I paying all these taxes? And I'm getting
my I can't afford beer, I can't afford anything. And
so I guess my question is to you, what are
the Democrats going to do about it?

Speaker 1 (30:40):
So I went and let me I'm going to answer
that in a second, but let me just let me
let me pull a few more threads. You said twenty
twenty is when you started to seeing the Democrats sort
of advanced this notion of wocism.

Speaker 2 (30:54):
So when THEO the awokening, the awokening really started, what
was it? You know what I'm talking about?

Speaker 1 (30:58):
But so is it the LATINX stuff that By the way,
not one person ever in my office has ever used
the word LATINX.

Speaker 2 (31:05):
So can we finally put that to bed?

Speaker 1 (31:06):
Yeah? But what did that even?

Speaker 2 (31:07):
Know?

Speaker 1 (31:07):
More?

Speaker 2 (31:08):
Everybody?

Speaker 1 (31:09):
Well, I just didn't even know where it came from,
And like, what are people talking about? Was it the pronouns?
By the way, once once you'd think California invented the
frame of the problem. Now I mean literally I had
one meeting where people started going around the table protests one.
There's been a hell of a lot of days between
twenty twenty and today and one meeting, So it's not
like this is I'm like, what the hell is? Why

(31:29):
is this the biggest issue?

Speaker 2 (31:30):
Well, in corporate America's everywhere? Okay, all right, in college campuses.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
And must college see that's where you reside a lot
in the college campus. You made a defund the schools
if they're doing like Jesus okay, and it's a number
number three? What else? I mean did you started me?
What was also the big wokeism thing?

Speaker 2 (31:47):
I mean, I mean, first of all, it wasn't just
it wasn't just the projection of certain narratives, which we
could obviously go through but it's when policy started to
come forward and what kind of policies hiring practices when
it was there was We're not.

Speaker 1 (31:59):
There was de kides ago.

Speaker 2 (32:00):
Yeah, I mean it was just what we saw. We
saw mass adoption. What we saw and not only that,
we saw pledging of billions of dollars of donations to
racial justice from the biggest types of corporations imaginable.

Speaker 1 (32:13):
For the point.

Speaker 2 (32:14):
And then it was sort of post George Floyd That's
what I'm saying, that's when that's when that's what you had.
You had a combustible Was that wrong?

Speaker 1 (32:19):
I mean to address the issue of racial I mean
there was there's legitimate issues as it relates to past practice.

Speaker 2 (32:24):
Was what was insulting. What was insulting to a lot
of people is number one, where's the money going? Because
the top premier BLM charity ended up being a racket,
right with Patrice Colors, Like where'd that hundred million bucks go?
So all of a sudden we learned that and all
these pledges of corporate dollars, We're going to this woman
that's like hiring her like brother for personal security, and
that like a lot of and you would even agree

(32:45):
like that that that became the number two. But number two,
which I think was most important, was that it was
it elevated then this scholarly community that was otherwise fringe,
like Robin DiAngelo and other people, and her book White Frigid.
Literally the entire premise of her book is that white
people need to stop being so fragile about race. You

(33:05):
need to sit down and shut up and hear how
racist you are. And she was brought on tours to
corporations across the country. And by the way, just you understand,
this was a phenomenon over months and months, and it
didn't quite catch up in turn in time for the
twenty twenty election. I do believe that if you guys
would have been a little less insane on crime in
the summer of twenty, you would have completely clavered us.
In November of twenty, it was like the it was

(33:25):
the riots that even made twenty twenty close. But then
it was the extension of all of the what we
would call woke stuff.

Speaker 1 (33:33):
And defund police.

Speaker 2 (33:34):
Yeah, I mean Minneapolis literally had to hold a special
vote saying like should we still have a police department?

Speaker 1 (33:40):
Yeah? That's I mean, I mean, that's that was lunacy.
I mean, but governed by the way, by the way,
you're talking to someone who's never supported the defense. But
I was explicit, but.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
Also like you did support Prop sixteen and twenty twenty,
which would have legalized racial racial prejudice.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
Right.

Speaker 2 (33:56):
Prop sixteen literally would and to go back to not
a year. You know, you're no sixteen.

Speaker 1 (34:01):
Until a nine to sixty sat so little hum.

Speaker 2 (34:03):
You're the governor of the largest state in the country. No, no, no,
I saw your debate against the Santis. You're good at
this stuff. You know I'm talking about. Props sixteen would
have had legalized racial prejudice, which it got defeated by
sixteen points despite all the institutions. So you're asking me,
what did wokeism look like when California, when all the
institutions yourself included, with all due respect, embraced this insane

(34:24):
ballot measure. Guess what even the people of California didn't want.

Speaker 1 (34:27):
Yeah, II, racial dismember. California since nineteen ninety six has
had Prop two oh nine. So the affirmative action case
came from the Supreme Court as well. It's the institutions
of hire learning had no impact on California, so we've
Actually it's an interesting California also codified as a constitutional
amendment marriage between a man and a woman, and that
was in the two thousand. So California runs an interesting

(34:49):
I saw.

Speaker 2 (34:49):
A contractinating though that despite I mean, there was really
like no opposition. It was like a couple hundred like
Asian ratiativists, honestly, go back to it. But I just
want to say, if you asked the question what did
wokeism look like? Prop sixteen in California that would have
had legalized racial discrimination.

Speaker 1 (35:04):
That was not a major There was a broader no
just I'm.

Speaker 2 (35:07):
Gonna bring it home to you. There were hundreds of
such ballot referendums.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
Right.

Speaker 2 (35:11):
There was you know, city council meetings where they said
the white people aren't allowed here, right, and what's not good?
I know it's not good. And so what that ends
up happen. What ends up happening is a broader question
of sensible not racist suburban moms that are like, wait
a second, I have a eight year old white son.
Are you trying to say he's a racist? And it
creates a backlash that then bubbles up.

Speaker 1 (35:33):
Right, I appreciate I appreciate that perspective, and know I
appreciate not just the perspective, I totally appreciate what you
just said as an explicit statement of fact to make
an eight year old feel like the racist is absurd.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
Governor, with all the respect that's happening right now in
California policy. And I'm not trying to drill you on you.
I'm just being honest, Like you could say that, but
like maybe you should like convene a special session and say,
like no more you know, race based teaching against white
people in the schools of California or Asians. I'm just
saying though that, like this is not a conjecture, it's

(36:06):
not hypothetical. It is embedded into the DNA of the
Democrat Party.

Speaker 1 (36:10):
Yeah, okay, I appreciate, I mean the whole how the
CRT stuff, Yes, I mean where I was trying to
find it. You think we have CRT and K through
twelve and.

Speaker 2 (36:18):
Do you have principles of it? I mean, of course,
critical theory is like a PhD that's sort of different
by Derek Bell and Kimberly Crenshaw, but of the same
way that you have advanced physics and the theories of
physics in eighth grade. It's like saying that, but for example,
I mean, it's very simple.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
And at least that explains why, because I'm just trying
to find it.

Speaker 2 (36:36):
And we know over at least fifty schools in California
that do things called privilege walks. Do you know what
privilege walks are?

Speaker 1 (36:42):
What privileged?

Speaker 2 (36:42):
Where they make kids walk ahead based on certain questions
and they try to make a point saying, well, you
see the white people are ahead, they must have white privilege.

Speaker 1 (36:50):
Okay, I get it. Yeah, No, like, all right, I
got to get back to back into the classroom that
I got to get. You got six million kids, get
your allocations. One thousand and fifty school this's the largest
resting play. But no excuse because these things are important.
And by the way, it's the reason we're having this conversation.
I'm this is very illuminating and I ful to me
to understand sort of the animus. What is it about?

(37:12):
You know that? Anime? I joke with people, I said,
what you know, you guys don't like DEE I, C
R T, E, S G D O J FBI.

Speaker 2 (37:19):
It's a acronym.

Speaker 1 (37:20):
It's all the nam three letter acronyms. What's what the
hell is the issue? What's going on with all that?

Speaker 2 (37:24):
You know? I can I do you miss some which ones?

Speaker 1 (37:27):
Which others? Whatever? I missed?

Speaker 2 (37:28):
E p A. Of course you can can't study the
Employment Prevention Agency.

Speaker 1 (37:33):
Oh okay, you're about to get that sixty five percent.

Speaker 2 (37:35):
That's what Look I mean, look, I mean the So
it's not just acronyms that we dislike, for the record,
but it's it's what goes like that subtimes.

Speaker 1 (37:44):
I mean, how about the book band stuff. On a
serious note, forty forty and forty books or titles, libraries
and schools are banned in twenty twenty three? Is that
not as a as a conservative?

Speaker 2 (37:56):
Well it depends. I mean, I think we can both
agree pornography should not be did nine year old a
fair point?

Speaker 1 (38:01):
Okay, so that's a book band, all right? Well there
are some other books No, no, no.

Speaker 2 (38:05):
That was the Moms for Liberty contention timeout like Ivory
and Bill Radley. The Mom's for Liberty movement that you
made a big thing of was just no porn to
ten year olds we agread. So those bands should be
those book should be banned. So what we should do, right,
now is every California school that has porn in their
library should be kicked out the Bible. Well, I wouldn't
say the Song of Solomon is porn.

Speaker 1 (38:25):
But I thank some have made that point. Is that
a fair I don't think that's fair as a man
of faith, and I deeply admire that about you.

Speaker 2 (38:32):
Thank you, yes, sir, But no, I mean again, the
Song of Solomon is rather risky. But what we're talking
about in these books is not just the words, it's
also the images. And again your audience can look at
the images themselves. It's highly graphic. But again, what.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
It seems a banning binge, I mean at next level
sort of cancel culture.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
But why do you think moms are doing that? Do
you think it's because they want to have mind control
or do you think that they have come across I
think the incident of incident of highly provocative material moms.

Speaker 1 (38:59):
But this mom's I mean, I don't have to get
into mods for liberty. You brought up the book band
deeply organized for a larger agenda. But that's my humble opinion.

Speaker 2 (39:08):
But I but for ex but let me just you know,
kind of complete. The point is that it's easy to
just call it kind of a book ban, but when
you actually have to read some of these books, it
will take your breath away of some of this stuff. Right,
You're like, Okay, you know we're teaching attendants to what
a condom on?

Speaker 1 (39:21):
I know, I just have a problem with you know,
who the hell is going to decide that government, I mean,
doron Desanta is going to decide what I can read
or say. I mean in the boardroom.

Speaker 2 (39:28):
And this is the exercise of politics, though the exercise
of politics is the highest form of community because it
blends morality and sociability. So what we do is we
have discussion and elections, and we have boards and commissions, right,
and we as a people say okay, no porn for
ten year olds. Yeah, and that's politics, right. I mean again,
I'm not saying that there's.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
Something we've got to stress test where the Bibles including that.
I don't even want to go forward any more of this. No,
it's tough, but this is that comes then this OA,
I just becomes a dialector.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
I have heard a lot I've never heard that's interesting though,
I know, I mean, it's a it's a I don't think.

Speaker 1 (39:59):
I don't take it deeply. Don't mean offense by the
way if father, cause would be offended if you But
there's just there's but there's most of these books are
critical on that portogram. There's sections that are that some kind.

Speaker 2 (40:11):
Of of images that are very violated to young kids.

Speaker 1 (40:14):
Some we would agree on that, but.

Speaker 2 (40:16):
Can one of you if you want to learn, Governor.
And I'm happy that there is a movement of moms
that is not that's growing where they feel as if
our kids are being hyper sexualized, and I agree with
them that they are being that they have to hear
topics social media well, both in the social media and
the plasticular. And I mean, look again, you signed a
law where school districts can't even tell parents if their

(40:37):
kids are trans. Not true, Actually okay, then.

Speaker 1 (40:40):
No they can. They just can't get fired for not
doing that. And it wasn't just there was. The law
was explicit said you can't be fired for not snitching
on a kid, not just for being trans, for being gay.
And my point is, how the hell but parents know
they have everybody by the way, parents snitching. No, the

(41:02):
teachers themselves have the right. The law is they can
do that. They can do that We're not saying you
can't do that. We're saying you shouldn't be fired if
you choose not to say Johnny was talking about, you know,
liking some other chad charitable. But let me freedom not
let me tell.

Speaker 2 (41:19):
You the other way to say this that a teacher,
of course should be fired if you don't notify a
parent of what's happening to their kid. But I meant
they should be terminated for that if the teaching.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
I want these kids to teach. I want these teachers
to teach, and by the way they feel like the
health or safety to the kid, they have a responsibility
to communicate that. They still can't. By the way, we're
not selling these teachers they can't. We're saying they won't
be fired if they don't look around and say in
the recess, there were two boys, Why didn't you see that?
You're fired? You should have said something because they're talking about.

Speaker 2 (41:51):
Two different things. You're but there, of course should be
a penalty measure, whether it be termination or whatever, if
a teacher withholds information from a parent, Because what you're
saying is that there's no way to hold them accountable.
You're saying you're.

Speaker 1 (42:02):
Accountable to what though accountable two kids talking about the
fact that this is a talking about subject matter all
of a sudden, now we have to have teachers policing.
I think beach or conversation.

Speaker 2 (42:13):
You would agree, Governor, that is an over extreme example
what we're talking about. It's but the extreme example we're
talking about is if which happens a lot, unfortunately, is
if a young girl says that, hey, I want to transition,
and the teacher accommodates and affirms it and the parent
doesn't even know. I have met parents like that, and
I heard.

Speaker 1 (42:31):
Of Trump and then they come back in there. But
I think there's so much extreme.

Speaker 2 (42:34):
Right, I will say, and we don't have to, you know,
we don't have to wrestle too much on this topic.
But you guys will lose on these topics. No, I disagree,
but but but I'm one of those guys.

Speaker 1 (42:42):
In child I appreciate and I, by the way, appreciate
the cibility which we're engaged in this conversation. Sincerely, I
don't mind losing. Sometimes you lose on Prince. It's one
of those things. Everything's not political, is the point. And
sometimes in principle and by the way, matter. Respect for
you abortion and same I experienced us. The American people
don't agree with me exactly and I but I admire

(43:03):
that on principal. But for me, it's not just political,
and I appreciate you you're making that point. I deeply
am mindful of the politics of this, which are very unhelpful.
I personally, it's unhelpful. More broadly professionally the Democratic Party
in our brand and one of the reasons to your point,
the Democratic Party brand has just been crushed.

Speaker 2 (43:22):
And so is your self. Awareness is helpful to know
because it is deeply unpopular, and I think that that
is that is an ascendant political force, right, that is
not going away.

Speaker 1 (43:34):
No, I appreciate, but I also appreciate you hold deeply
unpopular beliefs.

Speaker 2 (43:37):
Of course I do, but I I know, but you're
not running for office. I'm not going to run as
a moderate.

Speaker 1 (43:42):
What do you When do you when you're running for office?
I saw running. I saw a poll in Arizona that
you were like one or two. Yeah, the highest name
ID and a favorability. When are you running? Is is
that what this is all about?

Speaker 2 (43:52):
It's definitely no.

Speaker 1 (43:53):
You're not even old enough to be president. You're only
thirty one years old.

Speaker 2 (43:56):
You got to be I mean, running anything you're going
to run against I'm running for you know, head of
most popular TikToker. But I'm not running for anything.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
But would we ban TikTok? Are you?

Speaker 2 (44:07):
No? It should?

Speaker 1 (44:08):
Now?

Speaker 2 (44:08):
I used to say that, and then I started.

Speaker 1 (44:09):
Why did you change your position because it's literally interesting
or Trump told you to?

Speaker 2 (44:13):
Well, no, it definitely was not Trump. I sent out
a tweet, and I'm perfectly honest about this. I think
you'd respect this is that I was so mad at
them because they would ban me all the time. And
I sent out a tweet saying like, hey, if you
guys are really for free speech as a creator, like,
let's see it. Get a call from TikTok a couple
hours later. We're going to show you that we're for
free speech. We're going to show you the power of
the platform.

Speaker 1 (44:31):
Right.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
And I saw real changes where our campus interactions went
from being banned to now well over two and a
half billion views on TikTok. And so I wouldn't say expedient,
I'd say impact. And also they now have changed some
of their speech codes, They've changed some of their Hey,
enough for your son. Some finds my content somehow.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
Look, I used TikTok. I was just out that wasn't
out there. Try to jump in conversion. It's a it's
a hell of a conversion.

Speaker 2 (45:00):
Hey, I'm I'm open about it.

Speaker 1 (45:02):
I appreciate. Back to the Democratic Party, we talked about
just that we're not aligning with them. They don't trust us.
I think we have thirty one favorability, fifty percent on
favorability and by the way, thank you, thirty one percent

(45:25):
favorability is not good enough. So I mean, what back
to back to just the basics. So you you talked
about wokeism broadly defined. We talked about some specific examples
of that. You you began on the transport, which is
interesting and I respect and appreciate.

Speaker 2 (45:39):
Want you to speak out against that one.

Speaker 1 (45:41):
I appreciate what we just did of all of you.
I mean, and I've been by the way I've been
saying that so interesting gets picked up and that maybe
goes to the question we live in these filter bubbles.
We're talking to ourselves. We're in the sort of yeah,
it's Newsmax one, American News, Fox, and then it gets
into all the stuff that you guys are doing and
everybody else, And meanwhile I'm safe over here at MSNBC

(46:04):
and CNN, reading the New York Times, feeling really great
about things and having a nice class of chardonnay, listen
to Rachel matdow self medicating and just going yes, yes,
the press, laundry, the French that's of course the only
place I eat. And you know, give me a great
takeout in the whole thing where I should have been
at Applebee's. I get it, Applebee's America. I read that.

Speaker 2 (46:23):
Come on, man in and out.

Speaker 1 (46:26):
And here's a guy who makes twenty five times more
money than I do and sitting here with it with
a jacket, and I'm sitting here with it.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
And you control the fifth largest economy.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
On the planet. We don't control the people control the
fifth largest economy. And by the way, proud that you
know it's a three point Any population went last year,
A population went up last.

Speaker 2 (46:46):
Year because of the illegal border we'll talk about.

Speaker 1 (46:49):
That's just factually and true. And that was, by the way,
three hundred and ninety four National Guard that I put
down at the border six years ago. You should be
championing that. As governor of three hundred ninety four. We
have down at the border. We've been focused on I've
been breaking.

Speaker 2 (47:04):
Out anyway, You're you're getting somewhere compliments.

Speaker 1 (47:06):
Stay no, yeah, I was going back to.

Speaker 2 (47:08):
You're talking about your your wining and dying at French laundry.

Speaker 1 (47:11):
Yes, I was talking about the importance of of of never. Well,
I can't help you with the reservation. I've been very nice.
By the way. We couldn't have this conversation with that conversation.
Dumbest bonehead, move my life, okay, own it, move on,
grow up.

Speaker 2 (47:29):
And I'm trying that you talking to you to be
talking to myself.

Speaker 1 (47:32):
I'm just looking. I'm staring. I'm looking right you and
the eyes as I say that, just to get your
reaction that said, we we are We're losing. We have
this I Field's asymmetry of Donald Trump and Elon Musk
and on tweets. Are you doing social media and for
me doing a three minute hit at three o'clock in

(47:53):
the afternoon on CNN, I mean, how the hell will
we compete?

Speaker 2 (47:57):
We're toast well, I mean part of it. And credit
to you for doing long form podcasting, because long term
podcasting does penetrate different audiences, right, and our show does
very well. But part of the problem of the Democrat
Party that for the health of the country, would be
great to change, is that Democrats cannot survive in long
form podcasting environments. It's too unscripted. It's too masculine, honestly,

(48:20):
and the Democrat parties because what.

Speaker 1 (48:22):
I'm masculine about a podcast honestly, because I get the
whole manosphere.

Speaker 2 (48:25):
That growth to go into the wilderness with no rules
and duel it out and see who's better or who's strong. Seriously,
I mean like getting I mean like we don't do it.

Speaker 1 (48:33):
You're right for whatever reason, don't do it.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
You can laugh. But like who in the Democrat Party
you're right?

Speaker 1 (48:39):
Will go?

Speaker 2 (48:39):
I mean maybe Bernie Sanders, but he only he was
a Democrat, Bobby Who's now hhs. But like, there's something
to be said that if you want to earn the
respect of forgotten America, you have to show them that
you can intellectually joust with no script no hardbreaks, no
producers in the ears, no teleprompters. That's where new media
is going now, Will I will only challenge one thing,

(49:00):
you say. I am reaching new audiences. I'm not talking
to my bubble because our content is so appealing. It
goes in a decentralized way. And it's not just political,
no it's not. But like again, our conversation here is
going to go far and wide right. A lot of
people are going to see a lot of people are
going to consume it because it's also politics entertainment have
begun to overlap right right, And the old adage is

(49:23):
while politics is downstream from culture, I think politics and
culture are indecipherable from one another. Now Donald Trump became
a cultural phenomenon. Right. You go into you know, inner
city Compton, you'll see guys with Trump shirts with you know,
the hand up, you know, fight fight fight. So what
democrats are doing is you're still playing in a very old,
hyper sanitized media environment. And my advice is you got

(49:46):
to go where it's Unpredictablehere it's treacherous, where it's dangerous. Now,
I would make a more provocative argument that you wouldn't
necessarily resonate with, which is that that you guys have
not You guys have not built the intellectual muscle over
thirty years because you all agree with each other all
the time.

Speaker 1 (50:01):
Well, not like conservatives are or massively disagreeing this. I
Trump is completely collapsed on the conservative I would push
back a little bit. I would disagree. We have a
robust discussion. It seems like Congress is really doing great
oversight of Trump right now. They're just holding out.

Speaker 2 (50:17):
That's an important but separate issue. I just want to
finish the point when we could talk about Congress, which
is that in the Republican Party we have immense and
vocal and public spats all the time. I think you
would agree we fight about form. Look at Ukraine, right,
we're talking about primary challenging some of these senators that
were meeting Zelenski last week. The Democrat Party would never
do that. Now, I think that is a symptom of

(50:39):
an underlying thing we are. We're constantly trying to find
the approximation of what truth is. We're trying to use
dialogue towards hey, who's right? What do you believe? Why
do you believe it? And it's by no coincidence that
out of the long form podcasting genres in the top ten,
eight of them are conservatives, center right Rogan Megan Kelly,

(51:00):
Theo Vaughn, The Paul Brothers Program, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh.
There's a singular one on the left, which is Pod
Save America, which is just like a bunch of Obama
bros agreeing with each other for ninety minutes and saying
that we're not very smart and you know, and so anyway, But.

Speaker 1 (51:17):
I appreciate no, but it's an objective truth, right, I mean,
you just dominate this media. It's medium, but so what
I mean, But it's interesting you're making a deeper that
we're not and you didn't say it again in in
a maligning way, but that we're just not capable because
we're not why hardwired?

Speaker 2 (51:36):
Well, I think it's to be able to participate it. Well,
I think that it's two things. Number One, your upbringing
in college campuses does not foster debate like it used to.
It just doesn't. It's that it's about silencing the critic
and the elevation of the victim. So you do not
have the practice of robust having to defend your position.
It's very monolithic, it's very centralized, it's very top down.

(51:59):
It's quasi of thought oritarian. And then secondly, I would
just say that the philosophy on the worldview, as I
mentioned earlier that you guys have adopted is that THOU
which is oppressed will get the most points. You guys
don't have Thou that has the best idea wins. And
because of that, you guys have an elevation of like, hey,
we're going to eventually, we're just going to have a

(52:20):
small subset of a minoritarian, hectoring, hall monitor, assistant principal
vibe of people telling you that you're not allowed to
say these words and you can't say that, And we
call that political correctness, which in and of itself is
hyper authoritarians. So if you seek to understand why young
men are rebelling, it's like, no, I'm not going to
go along with this anymore. Like maybe I'm going to say,

(52:41):
for an example, maybe I'm going to send out a
stupid tweet when I'm seventeen years old. When I'm twenty six,
I shouldn't have to get fired.

Speaker 1 (52:46):
Be that right now. I've never liked this, Cancel Calle.
I mean, I'm glad to hear you saying. I remember
back when I was a lieutenant governor. I think Bill
Maher was trying to get on the UC campus or something.
They were saying Bill maher was too conservative voice, and
we called that at the time it completed said, but
it's equally insane that people are boycotting bud Light. I mean,
how is that not culture?

Speaker 2 (53:05):
So I don't drink, but yeah, I mean.

Speaker 1 (53:06):
Like you don't drink at all. I mean, by the way,
I'm just that's interesting. You don't never have I have. Yeah,
what happened a couple of years ago? You stopped what
you were stopped? Why'd you stop?

Speaker 2 (53:16):
I just wanted to be more successful.

Speaker 1 (53:18):
I love that. What were you drinking?

Speaker 2 (53:20):
Uh? Napa velly wine?

Speaker 1 (53:22):
Oh Jesus Christ, here we go. Right, are we going
to get a little My Lord forgive by the way,
forgive me. I I deeply respect. And by the way,
do you respect to drink? Observed?

Speaker 2 (53:31):
Like the fourth time? Come on, No, no, I don't drink.
But yeah, look, but first of all, we have the
agency to boycott whatever we want. But understand, but.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
I mean in that cancel culture is reverse. I mean
a lot of cancel culture.

Speaker 2 (53:44):
Hold right, it's something completely different. First of all, cancel
culture is someone in power using their power to cancel
somebody that doesn't have power. That's cancel home time out,
hold on bud Light was people that don't have a
lot of power, consumers using their agency to say no,
powerful corporation, I'm not going to voluntarily associate with you.
But cancel culture is always been the incumbent person with power,
a governor, a principle, a boss, a CEO, a corporate board,

(54:06):
going against the weaker. What we did with bud Light
was just a bunch of decentralized folks doing a good
old fashioned boycott.

Speaker 1 (54:12):
Completely different, but boycott is not I mean, whether there's
boycotting speakers, there's boycotting, that is a derivative.

Speaker 2 (54:19):
But the culmination of cancel culture is somebody who has
a power position wrongly canceling.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
I appreciate that respect. So let's go back to Democrats
being totally incompetent, incapable of spending thirty, let alone forty
five to an hour, glad having a conversation broadly on podcasts.

Speaker 2 (54:35):
You're you're becoming the exception.

Speaker 1 (54:39):
In the process of becos.

Speaker 2 (54:40):
It's like becoming Gavin, It's like becoming Michelle's right coming.

Speaker 1 (54:45):
But so what I mean, who do you are the Democrats?

Speaker 2 (54:47):
You do?

Speaker 1 (54:48):
Forget literally any Democrats you admire out there right now?
I mean even beyond just the podcast thing that you
look in, say, Jesus, there's hope forgive me there. We
can edit that out. No, I don't care. You can
keep it that.

Speaker 2 (55:05):
I used to have respect for Bernie on his anti
war stance, and now he's a complete and was going
to he's a complete in neocon now, so he's he's
not there. Democrats, I respect you, Oh, Bobby Kennedy, I
respect Tulsi Gabbard.

Speaker 1 (55:19):
Why are you laughing?

Speaker 2 (55:20):
Because the team now because you guys kicked out like
your best people. It's like the people that were into
This is a great point, though, Governor, is that Bobby
Kennedy was a heterodox opinion on a thing that a
lot of people are concerned about. Get him out. He's
an anti vaxxer. Tulsi Gabbard, who is an anti wark,
Get her out. She's a Russian agent. If you, guys,
see how you have an unhealthy purification process where eventually
you're left with just a thirty one percent approval rating

(55:43):
and a bunch of people that are talking to each other.
And meanwhile, we're the ones that have Democrats in our cabinet,
winning the electoral majority vote because there needs to be said,
we're if Democrats are serious about being a majority party.
Ever again, when somebody has a disagreement, for example, if
there's a pro life Democrat, is there a place for
a pro life Democrat and the Democrat Party, I.

Speaker 1 (56:02):
Mean there should be. Okay, that's on principle, there should that.
That's a bit, that's a big thing we held personal
point of view. God blessed, I agree.

Speaker 2 (56:09):
Not in every party or Democrat official would say that, right,
and so certain states have different opinions on that, and.

Speaker 1 (56:15):
I say, this is one of the biggest champions. I
got them on the planet.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
Yeah, trust me, I know that, I know. But like
the the issue though, is that that is like a
that is a one stop purity test, Like we have
pro choice Republicans. That is a pro choice Republican.

Speaker 1 (56:30):
No, and Trump himself decided to pivot a little bit.

Speaker 2 (56:33):
Pro choice than I am, like for sure. But what
I'm saying though, is what you see in the Republican
Party is the best, in my opinion, culmination of modern
politics and doesn't get appreciated. Look at that ideological diversity.
We have people that you know, geez, they want to
go to war with every country that says something bad
against us. And then we have people that are far
more dubvish, you know, like Rand Paul, but that that
is a better more Dare I say diverse picture? You

(56:54):
could say diversity is our strength.

Speaker 1 (56:56):
Oh, look at you, Look at Charlie Kirk. Diversity is strength.
I mean I want to end the podcast right there.
But first I said you could say you could I
want to do we have ultimate editing here.

Speaker 2 (57:07):
I'm going to know.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
We're not going to edit any of this. And and
by the way, uh uh, no reason to edit any
of this despite my use of inappropriate words here and there.

(57:32):
Let me ask you just on the on the Democratic
Party side, forgive me. I do want to just look
where so our effort to get out of the wilderness,
you know, on the woe culture wars, on some of
these issues, on providing a more diverse uh campus. Dare
I say of opinion?

Speaker 2 (57:51):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (57:51):
And pulling people in? But what what else do you?
I mean do you feel this party? I mean, you
be one point that the Republican Party is now going
to be the dominant and send apart.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
I know I'm not saying you're rid. I don't I
don't have that kind of pride. I'm not saying. I'm
saying right now we are the ascendant worldview. We could
screw this up easily. It might be you have to
have the humility to say that. But like as of
the recording of this podcast, we have a majority approve
we're winning w onon the electoral I mean all that.

Speaker 1 (58:13):
Stuff, right any both houses. I mean, we could screw
it up and you guys could adjust to adapt. Okay,
So this is what this was my This was the
question that I'm not articulating very effectively. But I remember
so many of the similar contours of this conversation we
were having. In two thousand and four and two thousand
and five, you just got Schelac both houses of Congress Republicans.
You had a Republican president that won the popular vote,
the last Republican president to win the popular vote, and

(58:36):
two years later you had Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Four years
later you had fifty three percent of the vote, the
highest since nineteen one.

Speaker 2 (58:42):
I don't say that's impossible.

Speaker 1 (58:47):
So so what if if you were in my camp,
what is not going to give you.

Speaker 2 (58:53):
My best advice? I'll give you. I'll give you like
the B or C level.

Speaker 1 (58:56):
Okay, give me, give me the B plus.

Speaker 2 (58:58):
Because the secret stuff I'm not sure.

Speaker 1 (58:59):
No, when you got what is your secret stuff there?

Speaker 2 (59:02):
That's secret for it?

Speaker 1 (59:03):
Is it? Is it technical? Or is it?

Speaker 2 (59:04):
It's all that I can design your presidential run in
a way and we're.

Speaker 1 (59:09):
This is not no, you got by the way. You
guys are so obsessed with the idea that every goddamn
thing I do. I said it again. Yeah, I said
it again because I needed your emotional reaction that everything
I do has is framed in that context. It's it's
a talk about you can trump derangement syndrome. I think
you got one with No. With California.

Speaker 2 (59:29):
First of all, it's not it's not new to have
someone from California to run for the presidency. We just
beat someone from California presidency. California is California is to
politics to the Democrat Party as Florida, it's our party.
You guys have the speaker that the former Speaker of
the House, Nancy Pelosi, right, you have you have a
lot of the ascendent political voices come out of the state.
So it's not derangement syndrome. It's no, it's knowing your
enemy and looking at the horizon and understand what's coming.

(59:51):
But anyway, if I were to give you or B
and C level stuff, it just gets if you have
to go to war with your own party on three
major things, you got to say we are not going
to do this illegal immigration thing anymore, which includes like
are you going to work with ICE?

Speaker 1 (01:00:05):
We do work with us. So let me by the way,
I want to make sure people do this. We we
have been I in fact directly we actually put out
the data. I was actually reached out to the administration.
So are you not aware that California coordinates and cooperates
with all CDCR releases over ten thousand? Explain the state

(01:00:26):
you got the state wide sanctuary state and yeah, which
in the state wide framework allows us to work as
it relates to issues of criminals and coordinating the release
of criminals from our federal or from our state prison
populate prison system. We coordinate with ICE on the deportation.
We've done that over ten thousand times since I've been governor.

(01:00:48):
We're not denying access, we're not denying coordination. I'm glad
to criminal That's why for criminals sanctuary, Well, I mean
it was never would.

Speaker 2 (01:00:57):
I would say, if you break into the country illegally
in eight USD thirteen twenty five, is of breaking.

Speaker 1 (01:01:01):
Up I get all right, civil not criminal, but it
is a federal lot. But I get it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:04):
So what I'm saying, So, by the way, if if
you're serious about moditating the party eight USC one third,
three two five vast majority Americans.

Speaker 1 (01:01:10):
So we're gonna just go through.

Speaker 2 (01:01:11):
No, No, I can Jordan.

Speaker 1 (01:01:11):
Americans want mass deportations. It's just the thing until until
they don't. Well, okay, that's my humble opinion, until they
don't okay, ten years. You might be right in taxes,
I don't buy it. You might well, but at the
moment you're right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
You might be right. The number bardo, we'll see number two.
We mentioned the Trands stuff. It's in affront all of
our senses. It's out of control. You.

Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
I don't believe it in a fundamental it's not just sports,
it's not stole. You just don't.

Speaker 2 (01:01:33):
I mean, get back to Charlie Kirk's US are separate
than the political advice. Again, but if you'd like me
to should do a whole No, I get it, Charlie
Kirk asked me, anything, and you could show up to
cal State North.

Speaker 1 (01:01:43):
I've already got twenty five, by the way, talks of
what your feelings are. So actually that was a question,
a question I didn't need to know.

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
If you want it, it's fine. I just don't think
that's the best use of that time. But on the
political advice is that Americans increasingly believe that their good
heartedness and charitable nature towards the LGBT issue has overblown,
especially with youth sports, youth curriculum, and the chemical castration
of our kids. When it comes to this medical arity,
and you seem that you want to really I encourage you,

(01:02:09):
governor to learn about some of the butchery under the
guys of healthcare that is happening under chemical castration in
this state and in other states. We don't spend a
lot of time on that, but the American people are
overwhelmingly against it. They're overwhelming against it.

Speaker 1 (01:02:20):
No, I think we have to be more sensitized to
that youth.

Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
Should be off limits. I think that's that's the political
direction things are going. You might be right on deportations.
I know I'm right on this. I know that this
is this issue is picking up steam there is no
good counter to it. The CAST Report, the United Kingdom
Cast Report, the NHS came out and said there's no
good reason to ever operate surgically on a young person.
You can pre have the problem. Puberty is a solution.
I think, I encourage, but I appreciate you, but I'm

(01:02:48):
saying politically, it's a super turbocharged issue that is kicking
the tail of Democrats. The third one that is quality
of life is quality of life. I agree with you
on this one especially, but like I mean, look, no,
I know.

Speaker 1 (01:03:00):
Out of control, unacceptable.

Speaker 2 (01:03:02):
Issues of just you know where I'm going with this.
Why is it you were able to clean it up
for gigiping guys.

Speaker 1 (01:03:08):
That was the dunest thing I've ever by the way,
you guys weaponized that. I saw them in twenty five things.
The thing that was that was, you know what, I
will happily, happily revert back to your can I at
as weaponized in this case weaponized? Can in this case
can I weapon.

Speaker 2 (01:03:25):
I guess itulous give me a point, but governed me
with all due respect. I saw a beautiful picture of
San Francisco that looked like Singapore, by the way, and
then leaves and the walking Dead come down.

Speaker 1 (01:03:34):
By the way, it was I pack you had dozens
and dozens of foreign leaders in California is not San Francisco.
But I am the governor of California, the mayor of California.

Speaker 2 (01:03:43):
You want the mayor you ever were the mayor, But
I just want to say that, But you have to
admit there's it's emblematic as something that if enough important
people show up, it can get clean. So why not
make it clean all the time?

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
That's exactly, by the way, that's my energy. I think
you've missed a lot of my press conferences. I've been
saying that to all these mayors. But the state vision
is realized at the look at the level, it's about accountability, transparency.
If you can't clean up the streets, we're going to
redirect the money. He seems to be more moderating. The
progress is being made. By the way, what's going on
with homelessness and all these red states. You're seeing it

(01:04:14):
through the roof eighteen the country. I'm not here defending
every red state, but I'm making the point. This is
I'm sure there's a lot of daughters in a Quali.
Life's huge, right, Yeah, And then like, look the number
one thing, which I know you're gonna agree with, and
I'm sure you'll have a super slick response, right, that's
that's about half true, but which is a three quarter
the cost of housing average home in California here her

(01:04:35):
fifty thousand bucks. I like what you said about black
Rock So yeah, I mean I but that was interesting
to me. I think that is.

Speaker 2 (01:04:41):
But again, that's not a majority of house purchasing. About
one in four houses bought by private equity. Would you
agree to say that black Rocks should not be able
to own homes in California?

Speaker 1 (01:04:48):
I think, and then turning around and rent it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
It's insane.

Speaker 1 (01:04:52):
This is a huge problem.

Speaker 2 (01:04:53):
You just to post a bill in the California state.

Speaker 1 (01:04:55):
We've had one and didn't get very far last year,
and there's more conversations.

Speaker 2 (01:04:59):
Right, tennillion dollars fund shouldn't be able to come in.
It's not just black Rocks specifically, mass mass asset managers
that have a billion dollars fifty billion dollars ascent our
management are now competing against our college grad from by
the way, cal State Fullerton.

Speaker 1 (01:05:14):
I lovely you say this, by the way, just in
that spirit don't you agree. One of the dough things
should be dealing with the one and a half billion
dollars of subsidies on carried interest.

Speaker 2 (01:05:22):
Oh, I carried interest. I think it's a huge problem.
And by the way, you know President Trump has proposed
in his tax building.

Speaker 1 (01:05:26):
Everybody proposes it all the time, but in actually, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:05:29):
Joe Biden, get rid of carried interest. That is the
holy rail of private equity. You know that, right, carried interest.
I mean, I get it.

Speaker 1 (01:05:37):
But let's go back to hide.

Speaker 2 (01:05:38):
By the way, you're gonna have a revolt in Palo
Alto if you get rid of carried interests. Yeah, they're
going to light torches and like run to Sacramento.

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
On the issue of housing, you couldn't be more right.
It's the original sin in the state of California, affordability period,
full stop. And it has more more impact on the
issue of homelessness than any other issue because of the
cost of living. By the way, we had one hundred
and eighty thousand people in two thousand and five, twenty
years ago on the streets and homeless and our point
in time count so this is hardly unique to moderate California. Help.

(01:06:12):
It's been a long term issue and housing is at
the court.

Speaker 2 (01:06:15):
We ran the problem. But here, help me understand this.
You guys control the House, the Senate with suit majorities.
You control everything. Why can't you fix it? You said
you were going to build three and a half million homes.
You're building like one hundred and eleven five O.

Speaker 1 (01:06:25):
There is something called a pandemic that may have had
a little impact. Issues of interest rates may have had
a little impact. And housing production guys.

Speaker 2 (01:06:33):
Are outpacing every other So hold on, hold on.

Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
Except forty two secre reform bills created a housing accountability.

Speaker 2 (01:06:40):
Has it work?

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
And we're making We're making big progress. We've done all
that zoning. We've been pounding in this space. There's no
administration in modern California history that's done more to reform
the housing space and the regulatory space as it relates
to the issue of housing. The biggest challenge right now
is nimbism. The biggest challenge we have is local planning
and zoning. And that's why we've been very grippy. Is

(01:07:01):
a disaster that I mean, and so I have a
Ymbi mindset on all this stuff. I'm in the front
lines of this. Your friends. They are your friends down
in Huntington Beach that I'm suing. Their conservators are the
whole city council, whole day. They love you.

Speaker 2 (01:07:14):
They literally the MAGA ninety nine point ninety living and
who's had I'm one of the one all of your towns.

Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
We're suing them because of their rank, nimbiism. We have
been very aggressive in this space. I'm waiting for one
big thing we all are waiting for, and I think
it had the biggest, perhaps one of the biggest impacts
that we don't focus on enough. In the last election,
I was insure interest rates as interest rates.

Speaker 2 (01:07:35):
I believe there wasn't.

Speaker 1 (01:07:36):
And you're going to see an explosion of housing production.
I'm very confident in that in California.

Speaker 2 (01:07:41):
Yeah, but you also might see an increase in housing prices.
Of course. Well it's to me, it's it's all to supply,
right ek one on one, supply them. Yeah, it's just
the biggest issue in our biggest California Hawaii have the
two highest housing prices in the country. Hawaii has an
obvious excuse they only have so much land. No, you
guys don't have a lack of one.

Speaker 1 (01:07:55):
By the way, I haven't been governor for a century, Okay,
I mean Jesus, I mean whole hold on. But six years.

Speaker 2 (01:08:01):
And by the way, no excuse, I get it. You
can't take credit from all the outsets. You know, number
one AI, number one nanotechnology AI is. But you also
got to take responsive for.

Speaker 1 (01:08:10):
Some of the more more novel I take a little
more credit of the generative. Yeah, thirty time to.

Speaker 2 (01:08:15):
Balance both both the credit and the and the blame.
But I appreciate but quality of life, right, so we
So when I talked to a college kid, one of
the reasons they saw Trump as a vessel for a
better life is that under President Trump those first four years,
we saw a material increase in their livelihood, wages, easier
to buy a home four years, four years, Like just

(01:08:37):
the facts are the average wage to be able to
own a home in LA to be able to own
a home, Oh yeah, it used to be eight seventy
five thousand dollars years. Now it's one hundred and forty
five thousand dollars a year. So I mean what it does,
and this is again, it's creating this kind of belief
system of Russian serfs of a generation that will never
have the material American dream that their parents once enjoy it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:57):
Yeah. No, And I look and I think it's a
full circle on this conversation where you began by identifying
circle back. No, but it's a point. But the point
you're making, Scott Galloway and others have been making as
it relates to this generation. Yes, he's spot on on this,
and I think there's there's so much validity to and
you recognizing that problem and how one it's a diagnosing.
It's one thing.

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
But and President Trump as well, he deserves credit. And
I mean I think, yeah, he's he's there's I mean,
I'm going to get you to say the words.

Speaker 1 (01:09:25):
By the way, I just spent almost ninety minutes with
him in the Oval office a couple of weeks ago.

Speaker 2 (01:09:29):
Isn't he the greatest?

Speaker 1 (01:09:30):
And you know, I think it was the first Democrat
invited in.

Speaker 2 (01:09:33):
And Trump too got to admit, there's so magical that
guy Joe Biden couldn't do five minutes.

Speaker 1 (01:09:38):
By the way, I did almost ninety minutes with Biden
right before he left in the Oval that I remember.
By the way, that'd be a hell of a book.
One hundred and eighty minutes I should do a book
of the two. That book mark, by the way, percent
was Oh, come on, god, just a fact.

Speaker 2 (01:09:53):
It's it's just you could do you think there was
any mental there's okay, no, no, seriously, you went around
the country being like, he's I'll take him at one hundred.

Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
There was one exception and I and the debate that no, no, no.
Before the debate, I was about to say uh. And
that was the big fundraiser down in LA where I
saw a different the Clooney and Clooney called Jack black right,
But it was not that was but you know, so
much of that focus was all right, he just got
back from Europe. But that was the one one time
we don't need to get it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:20):
But I'm not sure, but I just say, Governor, I'm
just on that one topic we saw with our own
eyes for three years and the media told us no, no,
he's perfectly fine. Yeah, And then we saw the debate,
and look, it makes us not trust our leaders when
we say everyone is perfectly fine. It's the empers five.

Speaker 1 (01:10:35):
Are you seeing any mental decline in Donald Trump?

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
Right now? I see the more sharp aque. Do you
tell me you sat with them in the Oval office
for ninety minutes. The guy has a memory.

Speaker 1 (01:10:44):
I'm asking. I mean, I know, I'm just I'm just asking,
you know, I think he's how often do you talk
talk to Trump?

Speaker 2 (01:10:49):
By the way, once or twice a week?

Speaker 1 (01:10:51):
Is he checking for advice ors you you give him too?

Speaker 2 (01:10:54):
It depends if there's something I want to talk to
him about. But I mean, he's just the machine. He'll
take every call. You gotta give him credit and amazing.
He'll take every cold thing's big, right, It's amazing. And
he'll listen to every idea. He'll joust it out, he'll
talk about it. He always goes back to what I
promised the voters.

Speaker 1 (01:11:07):
What was the last idea? You gave him?

Speaker 2 (01:11:10):
The last idea?

Speaker 1 (01:11:11):
Always like, mister President, here's here's what you need, or
here's the thought. I'm sad.

Speaker 2 (01:11:15):
Actually it was interesting. I said, I don't think Canada
should be the fifty first date. We already have California,
and we have enough libs in our country. Jesus on
that Charlie Kirk shall not take the Lord's name in
vain No.

Speaker 1 (01:11:26):
On that that. I thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:11:29):
This was new.

Speaker 1 (01:11:30):
This has been Gavin Newsom for uh think this was fun.

Speaker 2 (01:11:36):
Thanks man