The Breakfast Club sit with 2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to discuss his views on the upcoming election. Ramaswamy dives into his support for Donald Trump. He also shares his thoughts on Vice President Kamala Harris and the current political landscape. Listen for more!
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BreakfastClubPower1051FM
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Wake that ass up in the morning.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
The Breakfast Club. Yeah, it's the world's most dangerous morning
to show to Breakfast Club.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Charlamagne and God Lauren LaRosa, Envy is on his way
back from the Human and Harmony weekend, and Shriep or
just Hilarius is on maternity leave.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
But we got a special guest here, but Vike Ramaswame.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
It's good to be back.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Man. Listen. I like when I guess we can call
you a politician though.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Right, I'm ex politician. I was about like ten months,
eleven months, but.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
You might run, right at some point I was.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
I dropped out after. You know, I believe in trying
to win. But when your moment isn't there, then you
know what, you move on to the next thing.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I like when people come when it's not for any
particular reason, right, because a lot of times people come
just because they're trying to sell you things, whatever, whatever.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
So I like to just see y'all up here kicking it.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean I'm back in. Uh you know,
I'm an entrepreneur by background. The year in politics is interesting.
You learn a lot. I'm still reflecting on it, but
I guess you could call me a politician for eleven months.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
And listen whether I agree with the things you talk
about or not. I got to give problems with problems
to do. Great speech at the RNC.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Great speech.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Once you get the people.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
With the call and response, what they were finishing your sentences, Yeah,
you got something.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
We uh. We tried to be as effective as I
could there. The part of that speech that I wish
I had incorporated more into my actual campaign was when
I tried to talk through the speech through the camera
to people at home who traditionally aren't viewed as part
of the Republican base. And I think that that's something
that we should all probably do a better job of,
(01:31):
especially as a young person. It's a part of my
speech was talking to millennials, talking to gen Z. I
actually think a lot of millennials, so I'm thirty eight,
I'm a millennial, are pretty jaded and disaffected with policies
that Republicans enacted. Right the Iraq War, Well, you know
it was a failure. We got to admit that. Brought to
you by the Republican Party of two thousand and four,
(01:53):
the two thousand and eight financial crisis, as well as
the bailouts, the bank bailouts, which by the way, I
was against before we got to remind people to say,
you know what, both parties, including the Republican Party, have
been responsible for some of those policy failures, but you
still can't be jaded about your country. And to gen Z,
my message is you'll be the generation that actually saves
(02:13):
the country. You don't have to bend the need anybody's orthodoxy,
not a Republican orthodoxy, not a democratic orthodoxy. Think independently
for yourself and so anyway, I think that that was
hopefully a productive message and a starting point to say
we don't have to shackle ourselves through these partisan lenses.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
I agree with that, But why do y'all continue to
bend the need of magat in?
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Well, what is maga? Right? We could talk about that.
I think that there are many flavors of maga and
the idea of making here's where here's my flavor of it. Okay,
I'm not somebody who tries to harken back to a
past and say, oh, I want to go back to
the America that I grew up in the America that I.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Want to America.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
I want to make America greater than it has ever
been before. Yes, So I don't just want to make
America great again. I want to make America greater than ever.
And that's what our country has always been founded on,
which recognize which involves recognizing that we're imperfect because we're
human beings. We always fall short of our ideals. We
wouldn't be human beings if we'd be a nation of
you know, I know, Charlemane the God, but we'd be
(03:18):
a nation of gods if we did not, if we
did not fall short of our ideals. But we're not
a nation of gods. We're a nation of human beings,
and so we're imperfect, but we aspire towards excellence, we
aspire towards a better nation. And so to me, I
think that's an ambitious, hopefully unifying version of a MAGA
message that I do believe in and I think people
(03:38):
are hungry for. And I don't think there's anything wrong
with that message.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Because it feels like at the top of the ticket,
you know, the Donald Trump's and even now as Vice
president of JD Vance, they're always trying to take us back.
That's why I do like the Vice president slogan, we're
not going back because it feels like.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Yeah, look, I will say that when it comes to messaging,
that was a pretty smart message. People are interested in
the field future. What I think is missing right now
in the race, it's, frankly from both sides, is a
hard discussion on policy. That's actually what we need. We're
less than three months out.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Election, a lot better at that than what we were
seeing before from Bidy.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
I don't think she has yet given us what her
clear policy positions are. I think the fact of the
matter is the economic policy. It was just on CNBC
this morning before they came here, they're asking me, what
do you think of her economic policy? She has not
articulated what her economic policies are.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
What you want to rebuild the middle class, you want
to make sure the whole body happen.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Because there's some examples right specific policies. She sued the
Obama administration when she was California's Attorney general for granting
fracking permits. That's getting natural gas out of the ground
through getting hydraulic fracturing of natural gas. Is she in
favor of that now or not? Her advisers are saying
she's no longer in favor of that. We don't know
does she favor extending the Trump tax cuts. The Trump
(04:54):
tax cuts I think helped a lot of people, middle
class included. We just don't know whether she's in favor
of that or not. I think Republicans, by the way,
are making a mistake too. I don't think that going
down the road of I think both sides calling this
side weird. I don't think that's productive now, Republican responses
of personal attacks and response. I think we would be
better served in this election as Americans if for the
(05:15):
next three months we have a vigorous debate on policy.
Which policies are better going to lift up Americans? Yeah,
I don't think we're not doing it yet.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
The reason I don't like the I'm not gonna say
I dislike the term weird. I just think it under
sells a lot of the damage that Republicans are doing
to this country.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Just labeling it weird.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
I think it's not useful. I think you want to
go after the policies, go harden the paint. I believe
politics should be about sharp elbows when it comes to
policy debates, but when it comes to just saying that, oh,
you're not normal normal compared to what well.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
I think abolishing women's reproductive rights, you know, is a
little bit more than weird.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Here's where we should have the policy debate in that,
because this is so interesting. Coming out of the Republican convention.
Donald Trump, to the eye of a lot of Republicans,
is opposed to a national ban on abortion. So am I,
by the way, And I said so in the Republican
debate stage. I was in the minority last year. When
I say that I am opposed to a federal ban
on abortion, just on constitutional principle, should at least leave
(06:16):
it to the states. That made a lot of Conservatives
and a lot of Republicans upset. And yet it's a
weird position to now adopt where if you do listen
to a lot of the Kamala Harris campaign, they say
he will sign and enact a federal ban on abortion.
That's actually just not true, because like it or not,
he actually takes heat from many in the conservative camp
for his opposition to that ban.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Whibo rov Wade, Why the Supreme Court decisions?
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Why say things like you want to get rid of
abortion abortion pills? I mean you say it's the Supreme
Court decision, but he takes the credit for it. He says,
I'm the reason that just happened.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Well, look, I think that there's a legal and constitutional
question of whether the federal government should be involved in
any of this. In the first place. I tend to
come from a pretty I tend to come from a
pretty libertarian leaning school of thought. I want the federal
government to be doing basically as little as is required
to make sure the country is secure and people are
allowed to live their own lives. I think Republicans can
own a message even of you know what, to the
(07:09):
LGBT community, the gay community, You're free to marry who
you want, if you want, without the government standing in
your way. But that also doesn't mean that men get
to compete with women in women's sports something it's even
relevant coming out of the Olympics, I agree. So the
more we're focused on that type of policy to be
And here's a litmus test i'd give you now, I
mean the boxer. That's a more complicated case. It's intersects
(07:31):
x Y chromosome though, right, But I'm talking about actually
people who have male sex organs, people who have X
Y chromosomes that are competing in women's swimming competitions. Right,
those are debates we ought to be able to have.
And the litmus test for both sides is this, why
do you support Donald Trump? Kamal Harris? Can you make
the case for your candidate without actually referencing the other side.
(07:52):
So my challenge actually to a lot of the Kamal
Harris supporters is the most of the case that I
hear involve invoking Donald Trump. What is the case for
Kamala Harris that does not involve referencing Donald Trump at all?
I think that's missing right now, I got it. And
for Republicans, I give you similar advice too. What do
we stand for? Not just what are we against? What
do we actually stand for? Offer that vision, and I
(08:14):
think the country will be better off of both sides
step we can do that.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I agree with you.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
I think both parties need to be talking about nothing
but the issues at this point because people are out
here hurting, and people want to know how you're going
to put money in their pocket.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Yep, and how are you going to keep them safe?
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Whoever can speak to those things to the next eighty
plus days, that's who wanted this selection.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Mass illegal immigration, economic growth, and staying out of World
War three? Who has the better vision to do each
of those things? Do both parties agree on that? First
of all, that's an open question. Where do we stand
on mass illegal immigration? We don't really know what the
democratic position is. But assuming we agree on mass illegal
immigration is a bad thing, economic stagnation is a bad thing,
and World War III is a bad thing, how do
(08:52):
we solve those three problems? Whichever party offers the better
solutions deserves to be elected. And that's the way I'm
voting in the elections.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
Well, I think we have days, and I think like
when you use a term like weird there speak like
you talked about like in your when you first begin
everything you wish you spoke to, like the up and coming,
like the people are going to be next at solving
some of these issues. Yeah, when you get on TikTok
and when you get on Twitter, which a lot of
people are getting their information from and are being swayed,
and conversations are being swayed even mediasway by that those
(09:19):
are the terms that they're using.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
It's easiest digestible.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
And I think that I think that it's a generational
thing where you have to take what you guys are
talking about and then partner with that weird and I
think that's where you're going to get your winner from
either way. And I don't think that it's Donald Trump,
but I think that it makes sense what she's doing,
and I think that she will hopefully get to those
hard things, you know, because but she has to win
the people over.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
She had to woos first, and we're here.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
I think now is the past has passed. I mean,
I think a lot of people have issues with how
she was selected. I personally think going through that process,
people don't care about that right whether or not there
was a coup staged on Biden. I've said this public leader.
The Republicans don't focus on that because it's up to
the Democrats to decide who they nominate. They've made that decision.
But you go a little bite focus on actual policy.
And I have some serious differences with hers.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
It's not fit to lead anymore. She's the natural person
to take over.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Yeah, there is there's a real question around that too,
is who's leading the country right now? We still have
a country that's functioning between now and the election and
This is a question that the media has been surprisingly
uncurious about, like in a very serious sense, not in
some sort of philosophical sense. Who's actually running the country
right now? It is entirely unclear what the answer to
that question is. And just speaking as an American, put
(10:29):
the election to one side, I think that ought to
be deeply concerning too. We've got a president who in
some ways it reminds me of the British monarchy a
little bit, right. You used to have a British monarch
who actually ran the country, and at a certain point
it just became a ceremonial figure, all the pomp and
circumstance that you hold up as a figure, but really
just ends up becoming a figurehead, an aged king that
(10:52):
might or might not suffer from dementia. That's effectively what
the United States has become, which is part of why
we see the level of weakness on the global stage,
why we see the loss of self confidence in this country.
For a country that you just have the pageantry of
a monarch that isn't actually the functioning leader of the country,
that too, I think is a pretty big problem. And
(11:13):
Kamala Harris I think has an opportunity here. Whether she
seizes it or not is a different question. If she
steps up and is actually authentic about that question, says,
you know what, we weren't particularly honest about where President
Joe Biden was, and we deserve a government where the
people in charges tell you the truth, say it like
it is. You might like it, you might not like it.
But I'm going to tell you what my beliefs are.
(11:34):
And I don't want a bunch of lobbyists and bureaucrats
around me wielding me as a pawn. And so here
are my actual beliefs. And you know what, I might
have said this back in twenty eighteen or twenty nineteen,
but I changed my mind. I'm not going to pretend
like I didn't say it. I changed my mind. Here's
why I'm in a different place on Frank fracking, or
here's why I don't favor nationalizing the healthcare system anymore.
Because these are things she said in the past. It
looks like she's, you know, her advisers are trying to
(11:56):
say that she didn't support that anymore. I think take
the opposite approach. Just be totally upfront and say, you
know what, here's what I believe. Then here's what I believe.
Now here's why I change my mind. I'm not going
to be anybody's puppet. I report to you, the people
of the country. I'm different than Joe Biden because he
was wielded as a puppet. I think that'd be bold
and well, I think I think a lot of the
next generation they are so mostly Trump puppet for most Well,
(12:19):
you know what's interesting about.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
The role of you know, being this maverick who's draining
the swamp.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
But he's so I'll certainly give you the twenty sixteen
view because get a credit where credits due, and he
might be a puppet for foreign interference.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
That's the problem.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
I think that that's so. I think that the whole
Russia hoax, that that that thing's played itself out, and
that actually ended up being a little bit of mythology.
But back in twenty sixteen, here's one of the things
I like about Donald Trump. Say what you will. In
the Republican Party, it was complete orthodoxy to support the
Iraq war, to say that that was a good thing.
That was where the Republican Party was in twenty fifteen,
(12:50):
and he was the only person on that debate stage
that said, this is idiotic that we invaded the country
that had nothing to do with nine to eleven in
the name of nine to eleven. That was idiotic, And
now it's the Republican Party position. At least most people
will to accept that was actually a bad idea. So
if you're able to go into a room full, say
it's a political party, and tell them something that's different
(13:11):
than with the majority of the people in that room believe,
and then eventually they change their mind, that's a real
mark of accomplishment.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Now.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
I think Kamala Harris has an opportunity now because the
opportunity she has is she didn't have to go through
a primary. Going through a primary is interesting because it
forces you to actually bend the need to let's say
the far whatever wing of your own party and take
criticism unless you do. She didn't have to do that,
So she has an opportunity now to take advantage of
that and say I'm starting with a clean slate and
(13:39):
I'm actually just changing the game for the system. I
don't see her doing that yet. Maybe you're saying she
can't do that. I don't know why she can't do that.
If she's the actual president. She has an opportunity to
step up and lead. But you know what, just speaking
as an American, I'm not voting for Kamala Harris. I'm
vote for Trump on policy. But if she came out
and said, you know what, here's my stance on cryptocurrency. Okay,
Donald Trump came out with a big quo in policy,
(14:00):
here's my policy. Here's my position on AI, here's my
position on the border. You know what, I was the
vice president, but Joe Biden did some things that I
disagree with. Here's how I would do it differently. I
would at least respect her for that. If she doesn't
do that, that tells me, actually, it's not that she's
some sort of ideologue or some communist or whatever. Some
people level that critique. I don't think that's the real critique.
(14:21):
I think the real critique is then you just become
another cog in the system. And what I'm interested in,
I'm interested in breaking that system. And I want the
people we elect to run the government to be the
ones who actually run the government. Whether I agree with
you or not, at least the person who is elected
should actually be running the show. And I just don't
believe that's the case in the United States.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
State, is that possible to do when you have these
politicians who take all of this money on both sides.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
No, that's a good question. Good point.
Speaker 5 (14:46):
I'm pretty sure she can't. She's raising all this money.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Democratic Republicans can't do it. Yeah, if you're taking all
this money from a lobbyist, how can.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
You have a do this or from super PACs what
I call the super pac industrial complex. So the thing
is actually, back in twenty ten, the Democrats used to
be dead set against the rise of super PACs. So remember,
the corporations are not people. Debate that was around a
case called Citizens United. What they effectively said is, okay,
if you can't beat them, join them. So now you
(15:13):
have the amount of super pac money flowing into support
Democrats actually is greater than that using to support Republicans.
But they're saying, hey, if we got the money flowing in,
then we're not going to if you can't beat the game,
play the game. And I think both parties are worse
off for it, because the people who really determine the
politician's stances aren't really the people of the country. It's
the people who effectively fund the mother's milk of American politics,
(15:36):
and I think that's bad for Democrats and Republicans in
the United States of America. Like so, I would favor
a policy. I think Donald Trump er Kamala Harris would
do well to come out with this to say, if
you've worked in the government, you're banned from lobbying the
government for at least ten years after you leave. Neither
a candidate has adopted that position. I think it's a
winning position.
Speaker 5 (15:55):
You might get a little more honesty then.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
I think you might get a little bit. That's a
risk to some people view that as a risk, that
as an opportunity. But yes, I think you get a
lot more honesty. I don't think a small one. I mean,
I don't think congressmen should be trading individual stocks or
bercrafts should be trading individual stocks to benefit the public.
A question does it serve the interest of the public.
I fail to see how absent that argument. Ban lobbing
(16:18):
for ten years after you leave office, ban the trading
of individual stocks. If you're a government bureaucrat regulating an industry,
you probably shouldn't be able to join that industry. You
don't well, I mean, you know, because I don't like
saying the things everybody's always Nancy Pelosi is of course
guilty of this, but I'm a Republican's easy to just
pick on Nancy Pelosi on a given day, So I
hate saying things that are piling on when other people
(16:38):
are piling on. But yes, it's true that includes Nanty Pelosi,
probably includes some Republicans too. But I think these are
major changes that would have a lot of popular support.
But people aren't able to say if your mother's milk
of politics is effectively what keeps the system functioning is
the green pieces of paper that capture the system. So
(16:58):
I think that's not a Republican Democrat message. It used
to be a Democrat message, but it's not a Democrat
message anymore. And one of the things that at least
was cool about Donald Trump when he came around in
twenty sixteen is he actually was, in twenty sixteen on
the debate stage the only person who said would actually
favor ending superpacks, which I like. And that's something that
I think could be a winning message for either side
if they're willing to take it up.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Today, you think it's wise to go after the vice
president's race. Our question Tim Wallace's military background when you're
trying to attract independence in moderates.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
So there's two different issues, two different issues, and let
me sort of say what I think would be the
whyse side of each and what's not the why side
of each. Going after Kamala Harris for being a flip
flopper or telling audiences what they want to hear, I
think is a good line of attack because we don't
know what her policies are. So she said few years
ago she's against fracking. Now she says she's not against racking.
(17:50):
Few years ago, she said she wanted to have a
single payer healthcare system and a nationalized US healthcare system
and abolish private health insurance. She raised her hand when
they said do you favor abolishing health insurance? On the
debate stage, she raised her hand. Now her advisors are
saying she won't say, but her advisers are saying she
no longer believes that. So I think it's an interesting
line of attack to say, are you just going to
tell people what they want to hear, or are you
(18:10):
going to tell your people what you actually believe about
yourself and who you are? That I think is an
interesting line of attack, and that could include some cultural
elements for her, what her racial identity is or isn't.
I don't think that's a good line of attack. But
the idea that are you somebody who's going to tell
people your actual beliefs, or you're just going to tell
whichever audience is in front of you what they want
to hear. That I think is valid. Tim Walls going
(18:32):
after him for any part of his military service, to
say that, oh, you didn't carry a big enough gun
on the front line of fire, and therefore you didn't
serve the country. That's not a good line of attack.
But I think an interesting and worthy line of attack
is saying that did you lie about it?
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Right? You do.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
There's no obligation in this country to serve in the military.
It's honorable if you do. But if you're going to
say that you served in a war that you weren't
in that then that goes back to the question of honesty.
What doesn't matter without those distinctions.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Doesn't that deflect from what Tim Wall the issue that
he's actually bought up, which is there shouldn't be any
military style assault weapons on the streets in the hands
of civilians, because that's really what he was talking about
to me when you start bringing up well, I think.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
There's a few different things going on the Tim Wall situation.
There is evidence in interviews and otherwise that he suggested
he served in Afghanistan when he didn't, and that he
actually did know before that he was going to be
called to Iraq before he decided to actually go run
for Congress. I'm not in the business of questioning his
service at all. But when you're asking the question, and
you haven't heard me talk about this general topic in
(19:32):
the media at all myself, But if you're asking me,
is it fair game for Republicans to go after him
for lying to the public.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Is it smart or a good idea to go after
him for military service? No, But I think that for
lying to the public for somebody's gonna be vice prison
of the United States, that is I think. I think
from the issue of gunment, well, my whole thing is,
let's focus this on policy. Let's let's have a debate
on the merits of policy and where you lent. Now
Tim Wall's it's interesting as a governor, you may or
(20:00):
may not agree with the policies, but he is a
governor who has increased the tax burden in Minnesota. He
favors higher capital gains taxes for people live in Minnesota.
It's one of the highest tax states in the country.
It's not California, New York. It's a Midwestern state, got
by far the highest tax burden of anywhere in the Midwest.
He is somebody who believes in a lot of the
restrictions on fossil fuels. I don't know where you all
are on that issue. I'm dead set against much of
(20:22):
the climate change agenda because I think it leaves Americans
of every political persuasion worse off. Tim Wallas as a
governor has been most one of the most aggressive. Some
people might like it, people like me don't. But he's
been one of the most aggressive on implementing climate change policies,
even at the state level. So those are legitimate lines
of attack that I think we're not going hard enough
(20:44):
on as Republicans because we're focused on other issues.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
I was going to say, well, back to Kamala, do
you think that because you say, like you can't get
to her hard policy, But everybody's having so much conversation
about her race in what she said versus what she
didn't say, I.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Think he's actually helps Kamala, to be clear, from a
strategist perspective, from a Republican standpoint, she gives us a
lot to focus on by way of policy criticism. We're
actually missing that opportunity right now. So I'd like to
see that change in the next three months, and I
think the country would be better off for it. I
also don't favor I said this even when Joe Biden
(21:20):
was running for president. So there's a pledge that the
Republican Party required you to sign to be on the
debate stage last year. So I did the Republican primary debate.
It was called the beat Biden Pledge. I said, this
is a nonsensical idea for two reasons. Okay, one is
I don't think we're gonna be running against Biden. Turns
out that ends up being the case. But the second
(21:40):
reason is we're not going to succeed for the country
or at the ballot box by just railing against the
radical Biden agenda. We have to stand for our own
vision for the country. What do we actually stand for,
not just what are we against? And so if we
make that same mistake with respect to Kamala Harris, I
don't think we're runn against an individ candidate. I think
(22:01):
we're running against a machine. And what I'd like to
see as her vision is we want to go in
and dismantle that machine. That's what draining the swamp was
actually about. That's why you had that dragon energy in
twenty sixteen. And I think there's nonpartisan, bipartisan interest in
saying that, you know what we do, live in a
country where a bureaucracy crushes the will of the citizens,
(22:24):
go in and break that system. That's a powerful and
I think unifying message.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
I'm not a big fan of going after just one
individual candidate because it misses the point of what we're
up against. For Kamala Harris's part, though, I think she
owes the people of this country an answer. Where does
she stand on nationalizing healthcare? Are you for it or
are you against it? Where do you stand? This is
a big one that people don't to talk about. Affects
small business owners, including black and white business owners across
(22:49):
the country. She favors what's called a tax on unrealized
capital gains. What that means is even if you have
a business, you know you're a businessman too, right, So
you're operating a business, but to take somebody who's maybe
in a tougher position than you are. That means you
have to pay taxes even when you don't have the
cash to pay those taxes, because the government says that
(23:10):
it's worth something and you have to pay twenty five
percent of that value every year. Well, what if you
don't have the cash in your pocket? That forces you'd
either sell your business take out a loan to pay taxes.
That's a formula for real economic calamity. She has consistently
supported that. That's what we need to be talking about.
Are you still in favor of it? If so, why
let's have that policy debate. And I think that hiding
(23:30):
from those issues is something that leaves American people holding
the bag.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
She'll get to that, I'm sure when the debates come
in everything else and we only have three months she
does interviews.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
I agree with that.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
I want to ask you think about the flip flopping two?
Isn't that what politicians do?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Though?
Speaker 3 (23:42):
And what I mean by that is Jade Vance was
calling Trump America's hitler, all right, but now he's when
it comes to Trump, he's the hawk. Two girl like,
he's just you know, he's sucking them off every chance
he gets. And that's what that's what a lot of
y'all do, like just politicians in general. You here so
many different Republicans have said so many negative things about
Donald Trump, but ans soon as he becomes a non
everybody just falls in line.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
And normally they fall on the line in unison and
you can raise against rage against the machine. It doesn't
feel like Trump in vents are like, it's not there, Like,
so what do.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
You call that?
Speaker 1 (24:10):
A desolute So here's what I will say, is is
it fair game to press JD. Vance hard on why
he said certain things about Donald Trump before versus what
his view is on Donald Trump today? Yes, I think
that's fair game. And has he been pressed and has
he answered for that? Yes? He has. What I would
love to see is both candidates and Kamala Harris hasn't
done this yet. I'd love to challenge her to do
it because I think it's good for the voters of
(24:31):
the country. She hasn't sat down for one media interview
of a hard pressing one on one variety yet, and
she's actually the leading candidate now when many of the
polls for US president. So I just think we deserve
a country where the people are willing to show up.
She's show up, here's show up on CNBC where I
was this morning and actually engage in hard questions about
what her beliefs are You So JD say what you
(24:52):
will on three Show yesterday pressed on exactly that very issue,
and I think that's good for the American people to
then be able to to make their own judgment. It's
not your judgment or the journalist's judgment, but it's what
people at home are able to see to assess. Do
I actually believe somebody who believes they changed their mind
over the course of time. Kamala Harris might have changed
her mind, and I think it's okay. Flip flopping is
(25:14):
one thing, changing your mind thoughtfully is another. But you
deserve to be questioned on it, and it's up to
the voters to decide whether or not they believe you.
Right now, we're not getting that chance. And I do
think it is you know, you're saying, well, we hopefully
we're going to see that. I'm not sure yet that
we will. It's been about a solid month that Kamala
Harris has been the presumptive nominee. We got the convention
(25:34):
coming up this coming week next week. I think it
is vital for the health of this country that the
same treatment that the media gave Joe Biden in that
last few weeks after his debate, they didn't do that
for three years. For three years, we missed that. The
fact that it took that early debate and Donald Trump
demolishing them in that debate for the country to suddenly
(25:56):
wake up and say that Joe Biden is not a
functioning US president is actually a damning indictment of the
entire media and its relationship to the political class. So
we can't make that same mistake with Kamala Harris. I
think the media needs to demand that she at least
faced the same kind of questioning that frankly JD. Vans
and Donald Trump are getting right now, and then the
(26:16):
public is it's up to them to decide that's that's
a functioning demoonrator.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
You're not implying by her not doing the interviews and
based off the way that Biden was treated in the
last couple of weeks, you're not implying that you don't
think she's competent to be the president of the United States.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
Right I'm seeing the media is covering for her right
now the same way they covered for Biden for three years.
Speaker 5 (26:33):
Ain't they're covering or you think that she's just using.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
They're not planning hard, they're not paying this She's using
a strategy. Okay, I think she's using some smart she's due.
That's fine. But I think it's the media's job now
to cut through that strategy and say, this person very
well could be the president of the United States has
at least a fifty percent chance right now according to
most forecasts, of being the next president. She deserves to
be questioned not with kid gloves, but questioned with the
(26:55):
gloves off on what exactly her policy vision is for
the country. Until that happens, I think the voters are
hiding in the dark, and that's what allows the machine
to work, because we know she's questioned a lot on
that behind closed doors. Who's funding the campaigns of both parties?
You know, behind closed doors, a lot of donors ask
a lot of questions. That's how you raise hundreds of
millions of dollars in just one month. The voting public
(27:17):
deserves that same level of transparency and one of the things.
I will you say what you will about. You know,
you could criticize either side. I like that Donald Trump
showed up at the Libertarian Party convention. Right, that's a
third party CONVENTIONI I actually spoke there. He spoke there
as well the next night. I like that he spoke
to the National Association of Black Journalists in Chicago. I'd
(27:38):
love for Kamala Harris to show up at the National
Association of Black Journalists wanted.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
They wouldn't let her do the virtual things. You guys,
she does have a day sho but the day job.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
But the day job is run and come on, at
this point, she is going full time running, reading off
a teleprompter at the rallies, the same thing four times
a day. She should show up for that interview. If
Donald Trump sits sits down with the National Association of
Black Journalists, I'm sorry. A scheduling excuse is not a
valid reason for the for them, don't we also show up?
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Well?
Speaker 4 (28:05):
If Kamala had to cut you off, I'm sorry. I
kamalas is down with NABJ. We know where she's going
conversation wise, right, I think it's honestly, I certainly true.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
I don't think that's true. I think that I think
the person who did that interview for Donald Trump, if
they had taken the same approach with respect to Kamala Harris,
I think that actually be pretty good conversation.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
For the country. I want to see the news I think.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Even better. Right, So, one of the things I liked,
I mean, Donald Trump went to the Bronx. People could
say it wasn't the real Bronx or whatever, but he
showed up in the Bronx, he grew up in South Bronx,
showed up in inner cities in the country. Even in
my own campaign, I went to the South side of Chicago,
went to a room full of what ninety five percent black,
ninety five percent Democrat, not a traditional Republican primary location.
I went to Kensington in the inner city of Philadelphia.
(28:49):
Speaking as a former candidate myself, I could tell you
those troops had an impact on me, right. It had
an impact on my view of a national unity that
I believe is possible in this country that I wouldn't
have had if I hadn't showed up there. I'd love
to see Kamala Harris going too rural Mississippi, going to
Alabama going to showing up at a Fox News moderated
town hall.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Well, she does do that. Now, we can't act like
she doesn't do it. I mean even the past, which
she hit all of the battleground states and she's actually
hitting the street, which I think, which I think in
a lot of ways is more effective right now than sitting.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
With host questioning though is not. I want to see
her answer questions from people who disagree with her. That's
what the country has founded on. So face face off
with the people you disagree with, like town hall and
or and or hostile journalists. And here's why when you
stop talking about hard hitting, yeah, hot heart hitting people.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
Yeah, cause you see a black woman in a hostile situation,
you haven't, did you see that when you went to
any places, she won't know how to handle issues.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
I hope so, well, I hope so for the country.
But here's what I will say is when you stop
talking to people who disagree with you, it becomes a
lot easier to demonize them. And and that's and that's
what happens in the country. So say what you will
about you know, I know we probably have different views
on who were voting for this cycle, but I will
say more so than most Republicans, and in this cycle,
more so than the Democratic opponent. Donald Trump has talked
(30:06):
to people who disagree with him faced off more than
Kamala Harris has. And I think she has a couple
months left to see if she has it inner level up.
If you want to sit across the table from Xi
Jinping or Vladimir Putin, then you better be willing to
sit across the table from your fellow Americans who disagree
with you and face that questioning too. And that's when
I challenged her. If she does that, I'm not gonnay
I'm going to vote for her, but because I disagree
(30:28):
with her on the policies, but I will respect her
as a candidate in a way that I don't until
she actually doesn't.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
You're not just gonna support your fellow Indian because she's
an Indian.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Well, you know, I would say that one of the things
actually funny you bring that up in that I believe
for all American we got to vote in policy. Of course,
a lot of Unian American community is a little bit
is a little bit disappointed or a little bit offended,
at least in the fact that she doesn't really own
that part of her identity anymore. I know what she
did before, right, I'm not saying it. I'm just I'm
(30:57):
don't blame a messenger, but I'm telling you as a
just you can it is the fact that a good
at least in my read of it, I think a
lot of Indian Americans do have a little bit of
disappointment about that. My whole view is I don't like
identity politics period, right, one direction or another, we got
to revive our shared American identity, okay, And so if
we are really committed to the ideals of this country,
I think we should focus on what policies are you advancing,
(31:19):
regardless of your race, regardless of your skin color. So,
whether she's dealing with a tax or she's dealing with
leaning into it, I'm against it in both forms. Forget
the identity politics around the board, and focus on how
you're going to have policies that lift up all Americans.
That's what I favor talking about. But didn't you bring
it up. I'm just the master here. I think there
are some Indian Americans out there that do feel some
(31:41):
sense of offense about it.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
What I want to tell in the Americans. That's not true.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
She claims both sides black in Indian And this is
my last question, because I know you got to go.
What were your thoughts when Ann Kolta told you that
she wouldn't vote for you because you're Indian?
Speaker 2 (31:52):
She told you that verbatim.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Yes, you are an Indian is what she said. So look,
I think it's I think it's shameful. I just agree
with it deeply. But one of the things that I
think we need more of in this country. The only
thing worse than that is her not saying it, but
that actually being a true fact for why many people
wouldn't vote for me.
Speaker 3 (32:10):
But you know, it's a lot of people and talk
about a party who look at you like that. Do
I mean it's the same party that would make racist
jokes about you draw a racist cartoon.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Well, here's one of the things I actually haven't haven't
mentioned this before. One of the things that bothered me
a little bit in the campaign is maybe it's because
of my style or whatever. A lot of people in
the Republican primary base would say, Oh, he's just telling
us what we want to hear, and I don't think
that he actually means it or believes it. I got
that a lot. Actually, I thought about it after the race.
If I really wanted to tell you what you wanted
(32:39):
to hear, do you think I would tell you that
I'm a Hindu who practiced with my beliefs without changing
or shortening my last name. So if I'm going to
stick to that, you have a lot of politicians in
American politics, including other people on that debate stage, that
have changed their name, some who have evolved their religion.
I haven't done any of those things. So if I
wanted to tell you something that was going to make
it easier for me to win, those are the numb
(33:00):
number one and two things that you would do. But
my view is you got to be who you are,
and I am somebody who has my own beliefs, and
I am proud of not only my faith because it
guides me to make the decisions I do, but who
I am and how I got to where I am now.
I think in the long run, and I've met many
people in the Republican primary base across the entire country,
(33:21):
I think in the long run people do respect that
level of authenticity and commitment, and so are there going
to be a lot of people who on either side
of the spectrum to say I can't vote for you
for some silly reason. Sure, but I'm not going to
be a victim over that. You know what, if I'm
running to be president of the United States, I can't
blame the media. I certainly can't blame the voters. It's
(33:41):
my job to actually give people a reason to say,
you know what, you might have believed what you did before,
but here's your reason to think about it a little
bit differently. And I think we did bring along a
lot of people who believe they could have never voted
for a Hindu who said that, you know what, if
he shares the same value set that I do and
is actually going to advance the country and allow me
to be religiously free. I think there were a few
people who we brought along that way, more than a
(34:02):
few people over the course of the campaign. And you know,
I think one of the things I learned is I
preach this to the left all the time, right, is
that I won't say that you're the only person who's
responsible for your destiny, because there's otherwise always external factors
that hold you back, external prejudices or whatever. You and
(34:22):
I in our last conversation talked about this a lot
in the black community, But you could say the same
thing in this context. You're talking about me and my
race for president. Okay, maybe you're not the sole determinant
of what you achieve in life, fine, but the most
important determinant of what you're able to achieve in life
is still you. There are other factors, but the number
one factor that determines whether or not you succeed or
(34:44):
achieve your goals is you. So for me, now, I've
got to preach that hard truth to myself. Are there
a lot of factors that were uphill factors for me
in this race, including my last name being harder to
remember or to pronounce, the fact that I'm Hindu, which
I haven't had a Hindu president before, or there are
a lot of other reasons why. Sure, But the number
(35:05):
one reason why I wasn't successfully elected comes still down
to me. And I got to look and confront myself
in the mirror and ask myself what I could have
done better to succeed. And so I'm the same message.
I'm going to preach to the left or preach to
the other side. I'm going to try to practice in
my own life as well. If you want to be
the leader of the country, it's up to you to
level up and actually explain to people why you believe
(35:25):
that your vision is going to be best for them.
And you know what, it was hell of an experience
and I wouldn't trade it off for anything. It's been
probably the most challenging but most enriching thing I've done
in my life was the last year of traveling this country.
Meeting people of all creeds, all political persuasion, all races,
strengthen me. And you know, whatever I do next, I'm
(35:46):
going to be I'm going to be stronger for it.
And we're figuring that out right now.
Speaker 5 (35:49):
So what ought to be?
Speaker 4 (35:50):
And say you think the Republican Party will have a
person of color as a presidential nominee at some point.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
I think is entirely possible. Yeah, I think it's entirely
possible in the near future. I mean, if you look
at even twenty sixteen, Ben Carson at one point, let
in the polls. If you look at twenty twelve, number
one for a little while was Herman Kine as well,
and that's twenty twelve. I think we're even different than
twenty twenty four relative to twenty twelve. Frankly, even in
the race that I had, I mean I was I
(36:16):
was running, you know, briefly ahead of Ron DeSantis at
the early parts of the debates. That put me at
number two next to Donald Trump at certain points in
the race. So were there some headwinds for me? You
got an culter's comment, was that representative of a broader current?
Speaker 2 (36:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (36:30):
That exists? But was that the reason why I did
not succeed? Or am I going to pin the blame
on that?
Speaker 4 (36:36):
No?
Speaker 1 (36:37):
I think it comes down to everybody has their own
unique challenges. People have biases of all kinds. It comes
in a lot of different flavors. But if you're running
to lead the country, it's up to you to overcome that.
Is that surmountable?
Speaker 2 (36:48):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (36:48):
I believe it is. And do I think that at
some point in our lifetime you're going to have somebody
who is not a white man be the Republican nominee
and successfully elected US President as Republican? I think definitely.
I think gowhelmingly likely.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
I think they should have made Nikki Haley the nominate issues.
Speaker 3 (37:02):
I disagree with that out our putter or as vice
president it would have been a tougher ticket to beat.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
And I disagree with that based on ideology because she
and I have deep seated different views about our appetite
to interview different than Trump. Yeah, I have a lot
of different views than Trump.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
You don't really like Trump's politics, but Vick.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Well, I have. I've been very clear that I don't
agree with Trump one hundred percent of policies. I ran
for president for a year. I was very making clearly
the case of where I have some slightly different policy
views than Donald Trump. Hopefully that makes actually my reason
for endorsing him at least credible to the people who
followed me during the race to say I'm not changing
my policy positions. I still don't agree with him one
hundred percent of policies, but I'm voting for him nonetheless
(37:39):
because I think he's going to grow the economy and
solve the illegal mass migration crisis, which I do think
is hurting this country. And I think those are the
two issues that matter most to the next four years
of our development. But I think about the future this actually
we don't know. We don't cover this ground, and maybe
you guys aren't interested in this either, But I think
there are different flavors of America First beneath the surface
(38:00):
simmering right now. I think it's interesting it's in the
very early stages of this on one strain of America First,
it's the idea that we need to protect American manufacturers
from the effects of foreign price competition, that we need
to protect American labor from the effects of legal immigration
into the country. I'm not so much in that camp.
(38:21):
I'm in the camp of America First that says the
federal bureaucracy is actually the main thing holding back this country.
So I don't want to replace the left wing nanny
state with a right wing nanny state. I want to
actually shut down the nanny state. I don't want to
replace the left wing regulatory state with a right wing
regulatory state to advance so called good goals. Actually just
(38:44):
want to dismantle the regulatory state. And that's an interesting
There's two different currents within even the America First wing
of the Republican Party, and I think we're going to
be at our best if we have those debates in
the open. In the same way that I would say
about a Democrat, somebody who has different views than me,
but is actually willing to defend them and say this
is my ideology. That's great, we are allowed to have
(39:05):
different ideologies. But what I don't have a ton of
patients for is a lot of politicians who refuse to
acknowledge that they have an ideology or they don't have
one at all. And that goes to my challenge not
just to fellow Republicans, but Ta Kamala Harris as well.
It's not that she's a Marxist. I have no idea
if she's a Marxist, just tell me what your actual
beliefs are so we can have an honest debate. That's
(39:26):
when the country's best off. And you're right, you know,
within the Republican Party, I do represent a set of
views where I don't agree with one hundred percent of
what a lot of other prominent Republicans say. But for
my part, I'm willing to defend that. And you know
I'm biased, but I think this idea of taking on
the regulatory state personally, I do think that is the
way of the future for even the Republican Party. When
you play this forward, you know, four, eight, ten years
(39:48):
down the line.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
But vake Ramaswami always a pleasure, sir.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
Good to see guys like when you pull up, let's
just you know, keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
Ye see what I love it.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
Absolutely thanks. It's the Breakfast Club.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
Wake that answer in the morning at Breakfast Club m
Wake that ass up in the morning.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
The Breakfast Club. Yeah, it's the world's most dangerous morning
to show to Breakfast Club.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Charlamagne and God Lauren LaRosa, Envy is on his way
back from the Human and Harmony weekend, and Shriep or
just Hilarius is on maternity leave.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
But we got a special guest here, but Vike Ramaswame.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
It's good to be back.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Man. Listen. I like when I guess we can call
you a politician though.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Right, I'm ex politician. I was about like ten months,
eleven months, but.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
You might run, right at some point I was.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
I dropped out after. You know, I believe in trying
to win. But when your moment isn't there, then you
know what, you move on to the next thing.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I like when people come when it's not for any
particular reason, right, because a lot of times people come
just because they're trying to sell you things, whatever, whatever.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
So I like to just see y'all up here kicking it.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean I'm back in. Uh you know,
I'm an entrepreneur by background. The year in politics is interesting.
You learn a lot. I'm still reflecting on it, but
I guess you could call me a politician for eleven months.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
And listen whether I agree with the things you talk
about or not. I got to give problems with problems
to do. Great speech at the RNC.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Great speech.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Once you get the people.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
With the call and response, what they were finishing your sentences, Yeah,
you got something.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
We uh. We tried to be as effective as I
could there. The part of that speech that I wish
I had incorporated more into my actual campaign was when
I tried to talk through the speech through the camera
to people at home who traditionally aren't viewed as part
of the Republican base. And I think that that's something
that we should all probably do a better job of,
(01:31):
especially as a young person. It's a part of my
speech was talking to millennials, talking to gen Z. I
actually think a lot of millennials, so I'm thirty eight,
I'm a millennial, are pretty jaded and disaffected with policies
that Republicans enacted. Right the Iraq War, Well, you know
it was a failure. We got to admit that. Brought to
you by the Republican Party of two thousand and four,
(01:53):
the two thousand and eight financial crisis, as well as
the bailouts, the bank bailouts, which by the way, I
was against before we got to remind people to say,
you know what, both parties, including the Republican Party, have
been responsible for some of those policy failures, but you
still can't be jaded about your country. And to gen Z,
my message is you'll be the generation that actually saves
(02:13):
the country. You don't have to bend the need anybody's orthodoxy,
not a Republican orthodoxy, not a democratic orthodoxy. Think independently
for yourself and so anyway, I think that that was
hopefully a productive message and a starting point to say
we don't have to shackle ourselves through these partisan lenses.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
I agree with that, But why do y'all continue to
bend the need of magat in?
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Well, what is maga? Right? We could talk about that.
I think that there are many flavors of maga and
the idea of making here's where here's my flavor of it. Okay,
I'm not somebody who tries to harken back to a
past and say, oh, I want to go back to
the America that I grew up in the America that I.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Want to America.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
I want to make America greater than it has ever
been before. Yes, So I don't just want to make
America great again. I want to make America greater than ever.
And that's what our country has always been founded on,
which recognize which involves recognizing that we're imperfect because we're
human beings. We always fall short of our ideals. We
wouldn't be human beings if we'd be a nation of
you know, I know, Charlemane the God, but we'd be
(03:18):
a nation of gods if we did not, if we
did not fall short of our ideals. But we're not
a nation of gods. We're a nation of human beings,
and so we're imperfect, but we aspire towards excellence, we
aspire towards a better nation. And so to me, I
think that's an ambitious, hopefully unifying version of a MAGA
message that I do believe in and I think people
(03:38):
are hungry for. And I don't think there's anything wrong
with that message.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Because it feels like at the top of the ticket,
you know, the Donald Trump's and even now as Vice
president of JD Vance, they're always trying to take us back.
That's why I do like the Vice president slogan, we're
not going back because it feels like.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Yeah, look, I will say that when it comes to messaging,
that was a pretty smart message. People are interested in
the field future. What I think is missing right now
in the race, it's, frankly from both sides, is a
hard discussion on policy. That's actually what we need. We're
less than three months out.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Election, a lot better at that than what we were
seeing before from Bidy.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
I don't think she has yet given us what her
clear policy positions are. I think the fact of the
matter is the economic policy. It was just on CNBC
this morning before they came here, they're asking me, what
do you think of her economic policy? She has not
articulated what her economic policies are.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
What you want to rebuild the middle class, you want
to make sure the whole body happen.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Because there's some examples right specific policies. She sued the
Obama administration when she was California's Attorney general for granting
fracking permits. That's getting natural gas out of the ground
through getting hydraulic fracturing of natural gas. Is she in
favor of that now or not? Her advisers are saying
she's no longer in favor of that. We don't know
does she favor extending the Trump tax cuts. The Trump
(04:54):
tax cuts I think helped a lot of people, middle
class included. We just don't know whether she's in favor
of that or not. I think Republicans, by the way,
are making a mistake too. I don't think that going
down the road of I think both sides calling this
side weird. I don't think that's productive now, Republican responses
of personal attacks and response. I think we would be
better served in this election as Americans if for the
(05:15):
next three months we have a vigorous debate on policy.
Which policies are better going to lift up Americans? Yeah,
I don't think we're not doing it yet.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
The reason I don't like the I'm not gonna say
I dislike the term weird. I just think it under
sells a lot of the damage that Republicans are doing
to this country.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Just labeling it weird.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
I think it's not useful. I think you want to
go after the policies, go harden the paint. I believe
politics should be about sharp elbows when it comes to
policy debates, but when it comes to just saying that, oh,
you're not normal normal compared to what well.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
I think abolishing women's reproductive rights, you know, is a
little bit more than weird.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Here's where we should have the policy debate in that,
because this is so interesting. Coming out of the Republican convention.
Donald Trump, to the eye of a lot of Republicans,
is opposed to a national ban on abortion. So am I,
by the way, And I said so in the Republican
debate stage. I was in the minority last year. When
I say that I am opposed to a federal ban
on abortion, just on constitutional principle, should at least leave
(06:16):
it to the states. That made a lot of Conservatives
and a lot of Republicans upset. And yet it's a
weird position to now adopt where if you do listen
to a lot of the Kamala Harris campaign, they say
he will sign and enact a federal ban on abortion.
That's actually just not true, because like it or not,
he actually takes heat from many in the conservative camp
for his opposition to that ban.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Whibo rov Wade, Why the Supreme Court decisions?
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Why say things like you want to get rid of
abortion abortion pills? I mean you say it's the Supreme
Court decision, but he takes the credit for it. He says,
I'm the reason that just happened.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Well, look, I think that there's a legal and constitutional
question of whether the federal government should be involved in
any of this. In the first place. I tend to
come from a pretty I tend to come from a
pretty libertarian leaning school of thought. I want the federal
government to be doing basically as little as is required
to make sure the country is secure and people are
allowed to live their own lives. I think Republicans can
own a message even of you know what, to the
(07:09):
LGBT community, the gay community, You're free to marry who
you want, if you want, without the government standing in
your way. But that also doesn't mean that men get
to compete with women in women's sports something it's even
relevant coming out of the Olympics, I agree. So the
more we're focused on that type of policy to be
And here's a litmus test i'd give you now, I
mean the boxer. That's a more complicated case. It's intersects
(07:31):
x Y chromosome though, right, But I'm talking about actually
people who have male sex organs, people who have X
Y chromosomes that are competing in women's swimming competitions. Right,
those are debates we ought to be able to have.
And the litmus test for both sides is this, why
do you support Donald Trump? Kamal Harris? Can you make
the case for your candidate without actually referencing the other side.
(07:52):
So my challenge actually to a lot of the Kamal
Harris supporters is the most of the case that I
hear involve invoking Donald Trump. What is the case for
Kamala Harris that does not involve referencing Donald Trump at all?
I think that's missing right now, I got it. And
for Republicans, I give you similar advice too. What do
we stand for? Not just what are we against? What
do we actually stand for? Offer that vision, and I
(08:14):
think the country will be better off of both sides
step we can do that.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I agree with you.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
I think both parties need to be talking about nothing
but the issues at this point because people are out
here hurting, and people want to know how you're going
to put money in their pocket.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Yep, and how are you going to keep them safe?
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Whoever can speak to those things to the next eighty
plus days, that's who wanted this selection.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Mass illegal immigration, economic growth, and staying out of World
War three? Who has the better vision to do each
of those things? Do both parties agree on that? First
of all, that's an open question. Where do we stand
on mass illegal immigration? We don't really know what the
democratic position is. But assuming we agree on mass illegal
immigration is a bad thing, economic stagnation is a bad thing,
and World War III is a bad thing, how do
(08:52):
we solve those three problems? Whichever party offers the better
solutions deserves to be elected. And that's the way I'm
voting in the elections.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
Well, I think we have days, and I think like
when you use a term like weird there speak like
you talked about like in your when you first begin
everything you wish you spoke to, like the up and coming,
like the people are going to be next at solving
some of these issues. Yeah, when you get on TikTok
and when you get on Twitter, which a lot of
people are getting their information from and are being swayed,
and conversations are being swayed even mediasway by that those
(09:19):
are the terms that they're using.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
It's easiest digestible.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
And I think that I think that it's a generational
thing where you have to take what you guys are
talking about and then partner with that weird and I
think that's where you're going to get your winner from
either way. And I don't think that it's Donald Trump,
but I think that it makes sense what she's doing,
and I think that she will hopefully get to those
hard things, you know, because but she has to win
the people over.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
She had to woos first, and we're here.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
I think now is the past has passed. I mean,
I think a lot of people have issues with how
she was selected. I personally think going through that process,
people don't care about that right whether or not there
was a coup staged on Biden. I've said this public leader.
The Republicans don't focus on that because it's up to
the Democrats to decide who they nominate. They've made that decision.
But you go a little bite focus on actual policy.
And I have some serious differences with hers.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
It's not fit to lead anymore. She's the natural person
to take over.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Yeah, there is there's a real question around that too,
is who's leading the country right now? We still have
a country that's functioning between now and the election and
This is a question that the media has been surprisingly
uncurious about, like in a very serious sense, not in
some sort of philosophical sense. Who's actually running the country
right now? It is entirely unclear what the answer to
that question is. And just speaking as an American, put
(10:29):
the election to one side, I think that ought to
be deeply concerning too. We've got a president who in
some ways it reminds me of the British monarchy a
little bit, right. You used to have a British monarch
who actually ran the country, and at a certain point
it just became a ceremonial figure, all the pomp and
circumstance that you hold up as a figure, but really
just ends up becoming a figurehead, an aged king that
(10:52):
might or might not suffer from dementia. That's effectively what
the United States has become, which is part of why
we see the level of weakness on the global stage,
why we see the loss of self confidence in this country.
For a country that you just have the pageantry of
a monarch that isn't actually the functioning leader of the country,
that too, I think is a pretty big problem. And
(11:13):
Kamala Harris I think has an opportunity here. Whether she
seizes it or not is a different question. If she
steps up and is actually authentic about that question, says,
you know what, we weren't particularly honest about where President
Joe Biden was, and we deserve a government where the
people in charges tell you the truth, say it like
it is. You might like it, you might not like it.
But I'm going to tell you what my beliefs are.
(11:34):
And I don't want a bunch of lobbyists and bureaucrats
around me wielding me as a pawn. And so here
are my actual beliefs. And you know what, I might
have said this back in twenty eighteen or twenty nineteen,
but I changed my mind. I'm not going to pretend
like I didn't say it. I changed my mind. Here's
why I'm in a different place on Frank fracking, or
here's why I don't favor nationalizing the healthcare system anymore.
Because these are things she said in the past. It
looks like she's, you know, her advisers are trying to
(11:56):
say that she didn't support that anymore. I think take
the opposite approach. Just be totally upfront and say, you
know what, here's what I believe. Then here's what I believe.
Now here's why I change my mind. I'm not going
to be anybody's puppet. I report to you, the people
of the country. I'm different than Joe Biden because he
was wielded as a puppet. I think that'd be bold
and well, I think I think a lot of the
next generation they are so mostly Trump puppet for most Well,
(12:19):
you know what's interesting about.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
The role of you know, being this maverick who's draining
the swamp.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
But he's so I'll certainly give you the twenty sixteen
view because get a credit where credits due, and he
might be a puppet for foreign interference.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
That's the problem.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
I think that that's so. I think that the whole
Russia hoax, that that that thing's played itself out, and
that actually ended up being a little bit of mythology.
But back in twenty sixteen, here's one of the things
I like about Donald Trump. Say what you will. In
the Republican Party, it was complete orthodoxy to support the
Iraq war, to say that that was a good thing.
That was where the Republican Party was in twenty fifteen,
(12:50):
and he was the only person on that debate stage
that said, this is idiotic that we invaded the country
that had nothing to do with nine to eleven in
the name of nine to eleven. That was idiotic, And
now it's the Republican Party position. At least most people
will to accept that was actually a bad idea. So
if you're able to go into a room full, say
it's a political party, and tell them something that's different
(13:11):
than with the majority of the people in that room believe,
and then eventually they change their mind, that's a real
mark of accomplishment.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Now.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
I think Kamala Harris has an opportunity now because the
opportunity she has is she didn't have to go through
a primary. Going through a primary is interesting because it
forces you to actually bend the need to let's say
the far whatever wing of your own party and take
criticism unless you do. She didn't have to do that,
So she has an opportunity now to take advantage of
that and say I'm starting with a clean slate and
(13:39):
I'm actually just changing the game for the system. I
don't see her doing that yet. Maybe you're saying she
can't do that. I don't know why she can't do that.
If she's the actual president. She has an opportunity to
step up and lead. But you know what, just speaking
as an American, I'm not voting for Kamala Harris. I'm
vote for Trump on policy. But if she came out
and said, you know what, here's my stance on cryptocurrency. Okay,
Donald Trump came out with a big quo in policy,
(14:00):
here's my policy. Here's my position on AI, here's my
position on the border. You know what, I was the
vice president, but Joe Biden did some things that I
disagree with. Here's how I would do it differently. I
would at least respect her for that. If she doesn't
do that, that tells me, actually, it's not that she's
some sort of ideologue or some communist or whatever. Some
people level that critique. I don't think that's the real critique.
(14:21):
I think the real critique is then you just become
another cog in the system. And what I'm interested in,
I'm interested in breaking that system. And I want the
people we elect to run the government to be the
ones who actually run the government. Whether I agree with
you or not, at least the person who is elected
should actually be running the show. And I just don't
believe that's the case in the United States.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
State, is that possible to do when you have these
politicians who take all of this money on both sides.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
No, that's a good question. Good point.
Speaker 5 (14:46):
I'm pretty sure she can't. She's raising all this money.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Democratic Republicans can't do it. Yeah, if you're taking all
this money from a lobbyist, how can.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
You have a do this or from super PACs what
I call the super pac industrial complex. So the thing
is actually, back in twenty ten, the Democrats used to
be dead set against the rise of super PACs. So remember,
the corporations are not people. Debate that was around a
case called Citizens United. What they effectively said is, okay,
if you can't beat them, join them. So now you
(15:13):
have the amount of super pac money flowing into support
Democrats actually is greater than that using to support Republicans.
But they're saying, hey, if we got the money flowing in,
then we're not going to if you can't beat the game,
play the game. And I think both parties are worse
off for it, because the people who really determine the
politician's stances aren't really the people of the country. It's
the people who effectively fund the mother's milk of American politics,
(15:36):
and I think that's bad for Democrats and Republicans in
the United States of America. Like so, I would favor
a policy. I think Donald Trump er Kamala Harris would
do well to come out with this to say, if
you've worked in the government, you're banned from lobbying the
government for at least ten years after you leave. Neither
a candidate has adopted that position. I think it's a
winning position.
Speaker 5 (15:55):
You might get a little more honesty then.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
I think you might get a little bit. That's a
risk to some people view that as a risk, that
as an opportunity. But yes, I think you get a
lot more honesty. I don't think a small one. I mean,
I don't think congressmen should be trading individual stocks or
bercrafts should be trading individual stocks to benefit the public.
A question does it serve the interest of the public.
I fail to see how absent that argument. Ban lobbing
(16:18):
for ten years after you leave office, ban the trading
of individual stocks. If you're a government bureaucrat regulating an industry,
you probably shouldn't be able to join that industry. You
don't well, I mean, you know, because I don't like
saying the things everybody's always Nancy Pelosi is of course
guilty of this, but I'm a Republican's easy to just
pick on Nancy Pelosi on a given day, So I
hate saying things that are piling on when other people
(16:38):
are piling on. But yes, it's true that includes Nanty Pelosi,
probably includes some Republicans too. But I think these are
major changes that would have a lot of popular support.
But people aren't able to say if your mother's milk
of politics is effectively what keeps the system functioning is
the green pieces of paper that capture the system. So
(16:58):
I think that's not a Republican Democrat message. It used
to be a Democrat message, but it's not a Democrat
message anymore. And one of the things that at least
was cool about Donald Trump when he came around in
twenty sixteen is he actually was, in twenty sixteen on
the debate stage the only person who said would actually
favor ending superpacks, which I like. And that's something that
I think could be a winning message for either side
if they're willing to take it up.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Today, you think it's wise to go after the vice
president's race. Our question Tim Wallace's military background when you're
trying to attract independence in moderates.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
So there's two different issues, two different issues, and let
me sort of say what I think would be the
whyse side of each and what's not the why side
of each. Going after Kamala Harris for being a flip
flopper or telling audiences what they want to hear, I
think is a good line of attack because we don't
know what her policies are. So she said few years
ago she's against fracking. Now she says she's not against racking.
(17:50):
Few years ago, she said she wanted to have a
single payer healthcare system and a nationalized US healthcare system
and abolish private health insurance. She raised her hand when
they said do you favor abolishing health insurance? On the
debate stage, she raised her hand. Now her advisors are
saying she won't say, but her advisers are saying she
no longer believes that. So I think it's an interesting
line of attack to say, are you just going to
tell people what they want to hear, or are you
(18:10):
going to tell your people what you actually believe about
yourself and who you are? That I think is an
interesting line of attack, and that could include some cultural
elements for her, what her racial identity is or isn't.
I don't think that's a good line of attack. But
the idea that are you somebody who's going to tell
people your actual beliefs, or you're just going to tell
whichever audience is in front of you what they want
to hear. That I think is valid. Tim Walls going
(18:32):
after him for any part of his military service, to
say that, oh, you didn't carry a big enough gun
on the front line of fire, and therefore you didn't
serve the country. That's not a good line of attack.
But I think an interesting and worthy line of attack
is saying that did you lie about it?
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Right? You do.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
There's no obligation in this country to serve in the military.
It's honorable if you do. But if you're going to
say that you served in a war that you weren't
in that then that goes back to the question of honesty.
What doesn't matter without those distinctions.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Doesn't that deflect from what Tim Wall the issue that
he's actually bought up, which is there shouldn't be any
military style assault weapons on the streets in the hands
of civilians, because that's really what he was talking about
to me when you start bringing up well, I think.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
There's a few different things going on the Tim Wall situation.
There is evidence in interviews and otherwise that he suggested
he served in Afghanistan when he didn't, and that he
actually did know before that he was going to be
called to Iraq before he decided to actually go run
for Congress. I'm not in the business of questioning his
service at all. But when you're asking the question, and
you haven't heard me talk about this general topic in
(19:32):
the media at all myself, But if you're asking me,
is it fair game for Republicans to go after him
for lying to the public.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Is it smart or a good idea to go after
him for military service? No, But I think that for
lying to the public for somebody's gonna be vice prison
of the United States, that is I think. I think
from the issue of gunment, well, my whole thing is,
let's focus this on policy. Let's let's have a debate
on the merits of policy and where you lent. Now
Tim Wall's it's interesting as a governor, you may or
(20:00):
may not agree with the policies, but he is a
governor who has increased the tax burden in Minnesota. He
favors higher capital gains taxes for people live in Minnesota.
It's one of the highest tax states in the country.
It's not California, New York. It's a Midwestern state, got
by far the highest tax burden of anywhere in the Midwest.
He is somebody who believes in a lot of the
restrictions on fossil fuels. I don't know where you all
are on that issue. I'm dead set against much of
(20:22):
the climate change agenda because I think it leaves Americans
of every political persuasion worse off. Tim Wallas as a
governor has been most one of the most aggressive. Some
people might like it, people like me don't. But he's
been one of the most aggressive on implementing climate change policies,
even at the state level. So those are legitimate lines
of attack that I think we're not going hard enough
(20:44):
on as Republicans because we're focused on other issues.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
I was going to say, well, back to Kamala, do
you think that because you say, like you can't get
to her hard policy, But everybody's having so much conversation
about her race in what she said versus what she
didn't say, I.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Think he's actually helps Kamala, to be clear, from a
strategist perspective, from a Republican standpoint, she gives us a
lot to focus on by way of policy criticism. We're
actually missing that opportunity right now. So I'd like to
see that change in the next three months, and I
think the country would be better off for it. I
also don't favor I said this even when Joe Biden
(21:20):
was running for president. So there's a pledge that the
Republican Party required you to sign to be on the
debate stage last year. So I did the Republican primary debate.
It was called the beat Biden Pledge. I said, this
is a nonsensical idea for two reasons. Okay, one is
I don't think we're gonna be running against Biden. Turns
out that ends up being the case. But the second
(21:40):
reason is we're not going to succeed for the country
or at the ballot box by just railing against the
radical Biden agenda. We have to stand for our own
vision for the country. What do we actually stand for,
not just what are we against? And so if we
make that same mistake with respect to Kamala Harris, I
don't think we're runn against an individ candidate. I think
(22:01):
we're running against a machine. And what I'd like to
see as her vision is we want to go in
and dismantle that machine. That's what draining the swamp was
actually about. That's why you had that dragon energy in
twenty sixteen. And I think there's nonpartisan, bipartisan interest in
saying that, you know what we do, live in a
country where a bureaucracy crushes the will of the citizens,
(22:24):
go in and break that system. That's a powerful and
I think unifying message.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
I'm not a big fan of going after just one
individual candidate because it misses the point of what we're
up against. For Kamala Harris's part, though, I think she
owes the people of this country an answer. Where does
she stand on nationalizing healthcare? Are you for it or
are you against it? Where do you stand? This is
a big one that people don't to talk about. Affects
small business owners, including black and white business owners across
(22:49):
the country. She favors what's called a tax on unrealized
capital gains. What that means is even if you have
a business, you know you're a businessman too, right, So
you're operating a business, but to take somebody who's maybe
in a tougher position than you are. That means you
have to pay taxes even when you don't have the
cash to pay those taxes, because the government says that
(23:10):
it's worth something and you have to pay twenty five
percent of that value every year. Well, what if you
don't have the cash in your pocket? That forces you'd
either sell your business take out a loan to pay taxes.
That's a formula for real economic calamity. She has consistently
supported that. That's what we need to be talking about.
Are you still in favor of it? If so, why
let's have that policy debate. And I think that hiding
(23:30):
from those issues is something that leaves American people holding
the bag.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
She'll get to that, I'm sure when the debates come
in everything else and we only have three months she
does interviews.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
I agree with that.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
I want to ask you think about the flip flopping two?
Isn't that what politicians do?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Though?
Speaker 3 (23:42):
And what I mean by that is Jade Vance was
calling Trump America's hitler, all right, but now he's when
it comes to Trump, he's the hawk. Two girl like,
he's just you know, he's sucking them off every chance
he gets. And that's what that's what a lot of
y'all do, like just politicians in general. You here so
many different Republicans have said so many negative things about
Donald Trump, but ans soon as he becomes a non
everybody just falls in line.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
And normally they fall on the line in unison and
you can raise against rage against the machine. It doesn't
feel like Trump in vents are like, it's not there, Like,
so what do.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
You call that?
Speaker 1 (24:10):
A desolute So here's what I will say, is is
it fair game to press JD. Vance hard on why
he said certain things about Donald Trump before versus what
his view is on Donald Trump today? Yes, I think
that's fair game. And has he been pressed and has
he answered for that? Yes? He has. What I would
love to see is both candidates and Kamala Harris hasn't
done this yet. I'd love to challenge her to do
it because I think it's good for the voters of
(24:31):
the country. She hasn't sat down for one media interview
of a hard pressing one on one variety yet, and
she's actually the leading candidate now when many of the
polls for US president. So I just think we deserve
a country where the people are willing to show up.
She's show up, here's show up on CNBC where I
was this morning and actually engage in hard questions about
what her beliefs are You So JD say what you
(24:52):
will on three Show yesterday pressed on exactly that very issue,
and I think that's good for the American people to
then be able to to make their own judgment. It's
not your judgment or the journalist's judgment, but it's what
people at home are able to see to assess. Do
I actually believe somebody who believes they changed their mind
over the course of time. Kamala Harris might have changed
her mind, and I think it's okay. Flip flopping is
(25:14):
one thing, changing your mind thoughtfully is another. But you
deserve to be questioned on it, and it's up to
the voters to decide whether or not they believe you.
Right now, we're not getting that chance. And I do
think it is you know, you're saying, well, we hopefully
we're going to see that. I'm not sure yet that
we will. It's been about a solid month that Kamala
Harris has been the presumptive nominee. We got the convention
(25:34):
coming up this coming week next week. I think it
is vital for the health of this country that the
same treatment that the media gave Joe Biden in that
last few weeks after his debate, they didn't do that
for three years. For three years, we missed that. The
fact that it took that early debate and Donald Trump
demolishing them in that debate for the country to suddenly
(25:56):
wake up and say that Joe Biden is not a
functioning US president is actually a damning indictment of the
entire media and its relationship to the political class. So
we can't make that same mistake with Kamala Harris. I
think the media needs to demand that she at least
faced the same kind of questioning that frankly JD. Vans
and Donald Trump are getting right now, and then the
(26:16):
public is it's up to them to decide that's that's
a functioning demoonrator.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
You're not implying by her not doing the interviews and
based off the way that Biden was treated in the
last couple of weeks, you're not implying that you don't
think she's competent to be the president of the United States.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
Right I'm seeing the media is covering for her right
now the same way they covered for Biden for three years.
Speaker 5 (26:33):
Ain't they're covering or you think that she's just using.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
They're not planning hard, they're not paying this She's using
a strategy. Okay, I think she's using some smart she's due.
That's fine. But I think it's the media's job now
to cut through that strategy and say, this person very
well could be the president of the United States has
at least a fifty percent chance right now according to
most forecasts, of being the next president. She deserves to
be questioned not with kid gloves, but questioned with the
(26:55):
gloves off on what exactly her policy vision is for
the country. Until that happens, I think the voters are
hiding in the dark, and that's what allows the machine
to work, because we know she's questioned a lot on
that behind closed doors. Who's funding the campaigns of both parties?
You know, behind closed doors, a lot of donors ask
a lot of questions. That's how you raise hundreds of
millions of dollars in just one month. The voting public
(27:17):
deserves that same level of transparency and one of the things.
I will you say what you will about. You know,
you could criticize either side. I like that Donald Trump
showed up at the Libertarian Party convention. Right, that's a
third party CONVENTIONI I actually spoke there. He spoke there
as well the next night. I like that he spoke
to the National Association of Black Journalists in Chicago. I'd
(27:38):
love for Kamala Harris to show up at the National
Association of Black Journalists wanted.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
They wouldn't let her do the virtual things. You guys,
she does have a day sho but the day job.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
But the day job is run and come on, at
this point, she is going full time running, reading off
a teleprompter at the rallies, the same thing four times
a day. She should show up for that interview. If
Donald Trump sits sits down with the National Association of
Black Journalists, I'm sorry. A scheduling excuse is not a
valid reason for the for them, don't we also show up?
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Well?
Speaker 4 (28:05):
If Kamala had to cut you off, I'm sorry. I
kamalas is down with NABJ. We know where she's going
conversation wise, right, I think it's honestly, I certainly true.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
I don't think that's true. I think that I think
the person who did that interview for Donald Trump, if
they had taken the same approach with respect to Kamala Harris,
I think that actually be pretty good conversation.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
For the country. I want to see the news I think.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Even better. Right, So, one of the things I liked,
I mean, Donald Trump went to the Bronx. People could
say it wasn't the real Bronx or whatever, but he
showed up in the Bronx, he grew up in South Bronx,
showed up in inner cities in the country. Even in
my own campaign, I went to the South side of Chicago,
went to a room full of what ninety five percent black,
ninety five percent Democrat, not a traditional Republican primary location.
I went to Kensington in the inner city of Philadelphia.
(28:49):
Speaking as a former candidate myself, I could tell you
those troops had an impact on me, right. It had
an impact on my view of a national unity that
I believe is possible in this country that I wouldn't
have had if I hadn't showed up there. I'd love
to see Kamala Harris going too rural Mississippi, going to
Alabama going to showing up at a Fox News moderated
town hall.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Well, she does do that. Now, we can't act like
she doesn't do it. I mean even the past, which
she hit all of the battleground states and she's actually
hitting the street, which I think, which I think in
a lot of ways is more effective right now than sitting.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
With host questioning though is not. I want to see
her answer questions from people who disagree with her. That's
what the country has founded on. So face face off
with the people you disagree with, like town hall and
or and or hostile journalists. And here's why when you
stop talking about hard hitting, yeah, hot heart hitting people.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
Yeah, cause you see a black woman in a hostile situation,
you haven't, did you see that when you went to
any places, she won't know how to handle issues.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
I hope so, well, I hope so for the country.
But here's what I will say is when you stop
talking to people who disagree with you, it becomes a
lot easier to demonize them. And and that's and that's
what happens in the country. So say what you will
about you know, I know we probably have different views
on who were voting for this cycle, but I will
say more so than most Republicans, and in this cycle,
more so than the Democratic opponent. Donald Trump has talked
(30:06):
to people who disagree with him faced off more than
Kamala Harris has. And I think she has a couple
months left to see if she has it inner level up.
If you want to sit across the table from Xi
Jinping or Vladimir Putin, then you better be willing to
sit across the table from your fellow Americans who disagree
with you and face that questioning too. And that's when
I challenged her. If she does that, I'm not gonnay
I'm going to vote for her, but because I disagree
(30:28):
with her on the policies, but I will respect her
as a candidate in a way that I don't until
she actually doesn't.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
You're not just gonna support your fellow Indian because she's
an Indian.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Well, you know, I would say that one of the things
actually funny you bring that up in that I believe
for all American we got to vote in policy. Of course,
a lot of Unian American community is a little bit
is a little bit disappointed or a little bit offended,
at least in the fact that she doesn't really own
that part of her identity anymore. I know what she
did before, right, I'm not saying it. I'm just I'm
(30:57):
don't blame a messenger, but I'm telling you as a
just you can it is the fact that a good
at least in my read of it, I think a
lot of Indian Americans do have a little bit of
disappointment about that. My whole view is I don't like
identity politics period, right, one direction or another, we got
to revive our shared American identity, okay, And so if
we are really committed to the ideals of this country,
I think we should focus on what policies are you advancing,
(31:19):
regardless of your race, regardless of your skin color. So,
whether she's dealing with a tax or she's dealing with
leaning into it, I'm against it in both forms. Forget
the identity politics around the board, and focus on how
you're going to have policies that lift up all Americans.
That's what I favor talking about. But didn't you bring
it up. I'm just the master here. I think there
are some Indian Americans out there that do feel some
(31:41):
sense of offense about it.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
What I want to tell in the Americans. That's not true.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
She claims both sides black in Indian And this is
my last question, because I know you got to go.
What were your thoughts when Ann Kolta told you that
she wouldn't vote for you because you're Indian?
Speaker 2 (31:52):
She told you that verbatim.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Yes, you are an Indian is what she said. So look,
I think it's I think it's shameful. I just agree
with it deeply. But one of the things that I
think we need more of in this country. The only
thing worse than that is her not saying it, but
that actually being a true fact for why many people
wouldn't vote for me.
Speaker 3 (32:10):
But you know, it's a lot of people and talk
about a party who look at you like that. Do
I mean it's the same party that would make racist
jokes about you draw a racist cartoon.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Well, here's one of the things I actually haven't haven't
mentioned this before. One of the things that bothered me
a little bit in the campaign is maybe it's because
of my style or whatever. A lot of people in
the Republican primary base would say, Oh, he's just telling
us what we want to hear, and I don't think
that he actually means it or believes it. I got
that a lot. Actually, I thought about it after the race.
If I really wanted to tell you what you wanted
(32:39):
to hear, do you think I would tell you that
I'm a Hindu who practiced with my beliefs without changing
or shortening my last name. So if I'm going to
stick to that, you have a lot of politicians in
American politics, including other people on that debate stage, that
have changed their name, some who have evolved their religion.
I haven't done any of those things. So if I
wanted to tell you something that was going to make
it easier for me to win, those are the numb
(33:00):
number one and two things that you would do. But
my view is you got to be who you are,
and I am somebody who has my own beliefs, and
I am proud of not only my faith because it
guides me to make the decisions I do, but who
I am and how I got to where I am now.
I think in the long run, and I've met many
people in the Republican primary base across the entire country,
(33:21):
I think in the long run people do respect that
level of authenticity and commitment, and so are there going
to be a lot of people who on either side
of the spectrum to say I can't vote for you
for some silly reason. Sure, but I'm not going to
be a victim over that. You know what, if I'm
running to be president of the United States, I can't
blame the media. I certainly can't blame the voters. It's
(33:41):
my job to actually give people a reason to say,
you know what, you might have believed what you did before,
but here's your reason to think about it a little
bit differently. And I think we did bring along a
lot of people who believe they could have never voted
for a Hindu who said that, you know what, if
he shares the same value set that I do and
is actually going to advance the country and allow me
to be religiously free. I think there were a few
people who we brought along that way, more than a
(34:02):
few people over the course of the campaign. And you know,
I think one of the things I learned is I
preach this to the left all the time, right, is
that I won't say that you're the only person who's
responsible for your destiny, because there's otherwise always external factors
that hold you back, external prejudices or whatever. You and
(34:22):
I in our last conversation talked about this a lot
in the black community, But you could say the same
thing in this context. You're talking about me and my
race for president. Okay, maybe you're not the sole determinant
of what you achieve in life, fine, but the most
important determinant of what you're able to achieve in life
is still you. There are other factors, but the number
one factor that determines whether or not you succeed or
(34:44):
achieve your goals is you. So for me, now, I've
got to preach that hard truth to myself. Are there
a lot of factors that were uphill factors for me
in this race, including my last name being harder to
remember or to pronounce, the fact that I'm Hindu, which
I haven't had a Hindu president before, or there are
a lot of other reasons why. Sure, But the number
(35:05):
one reason why I wasn't successfully elected comes still down
to me. And I got to look and confront myself
in the mirror and ask myself what I could have
done better to succeed. And so I'm the same message.
I'm going to preach to the left or preach to
the other side. I'm going to try to practice in
my own life as well. If you want to be
the leader of the country, it's up to you to
level up and actually explain to people why you believe
(35:25):
that your vision is going to be best for them.
And you know what, it was hell of an experience
and I wouldn't trade it off for anything. It's been
probably the most challenging but most enriching thing I've done
in my life was the last year of traveling this country.
Meeting people of all creeds, all political persuasion, all races,
strengthen me. And you know, whatever I do next, I'm
(35:46):
going to be I'm going to be stronger for it.
And we're figuring that out right now.
Speaker 5 (35:49):
So what ought to be?
Speaker 4 (35:50):
And say you think the Republican Party will have a
person of color as a presidential nominee at some point.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
I think is entirely possible. Yeah, I think it's entirely
possible in the near future. I mean, if you look
at even twenty sixteen, Ben Carson at one point, let
in the polls. If you look at twenty twelve, number
one for a little while was Herman Kine as well,
and that's twenty twelve. I think we're even different than
twenty twenty four relative to twenty twelve. Frankly, even in
the race that I had, I mean I was I
(36:16):
was running, you know, briefly ahead of Ron DeSantis at
the early parts of the debates. That put me at
number two next to Donald Trump at certain points in
the race. So were there some headwinds for me? You
got an culter's comment, was that representative of a broader current?
Speaker 2 (36:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (36:30):
That exists? But was that the reason why I did
not succeed? Or am I going to pin the blame
on that?
Speaker 4 (36:36):
No?
Speaker 1 (36:37):
I think it comes down to everybody has their own
unique challenges. People have biases of all kinds. It comes
in a lot of different flavors. But if you're running
to lead the country, it's up to you to overcome that.
Is that surmountable?
Speaker 2 (36:48):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (36:48):
I believe it is. And do I think that at
some point in our lifetime you're going to have somebody
who is not a white man be the Republican nominee
and successfully elected US President as Republican? I think definitely.
I think gowhelmingly likely.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
I think they should have made Nikki Haley the nominate issues.
Speaker 3 (37:02):
I disagree with that out our putter or as vice
president it would have been a tougher ticket to beat.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
And I disagree with that based on ideology because she
and I have deep seated different views about our appetite
to interview different than Trump. Yeah, I have a lot
of different views than Trump.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
You don't really like Trump's politics, but Vick.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Well, I have. I've been very clear that I don't
agree with Trump one hundred percent of policies. I ran
for president for a year. I was very making clearly
the case of where I have some slightly different policy
views than Donald Trump. Hopefully that makes actually my reason
for endorsing him at least credible to the people who
followed me during the race to say I'm not changing
my policy positions. I still don't agree with him one
hundred percent of policies, but I'm voting for him nonetheless
(37:39):
because I think he's going to grow the economy and
solve the illegal mass migration crisis, which I do think
is hurting this country. And I think those are the
two issues that matter most to the next four years
of our development. But I think about the future this actually
we don't know. We don't cover this ground, and maybe
you guys aren't interested in this either, But I think
there are different flavors of America First beneath the surface
(38:00):
simmering right now. I think it's interesting it's in the
very early stages of this on one strain of America First,
it's the idea that we need to protect American manufacturers
from the effects of foreign price competition, that we need
to protect American labor from the effects of legal immigration
into the country. I'm not so much in that camp.
(38:21):
I'm in the camp of America First that says the
federal bureaucracy is actually the main thing holding back this country.
So I don't want to replace the left wing nanny
state with a right wing nanny state. I want to
actually shut down the nanny state. I don't want to
replace the left wing regulatory state with a right wing
regulatory state to advance so called good goals. Actually just
(38:44):
want to dismantle the regulatory state. And that's an interesting
There's two different currents within even the America First wing
of the Republican Party, and I think we're going to
be at our best if we have those debates in
the open. In the same way that I would say
about a Democrat, somebody who has different views than me,
but is actually willing to defend them and say this
is my ideology. That's great, we are allowed to have
(39:05):
different ideologies. But what I don't have a ton of
patients for is a lot of politicians who refuse to
acknowledge that they have an ideology or they don't have
one at all. And that goes to my challenge not
just to fellow Republicans, but Ta Kamala Harris as well.
It's not that she's a Marxist. I have no idea
if she's a Marxist, just tell me what your actual
beliefs are so we can have an honest debate. That's
(39:26):
when the country's best off. And you're right, you know,
within the Republican Party, I do represent a set of
views where I don't agree with one hundred percent of
what a lot of other prominent Republicans say. But for
my part, I'm willing to defend that. And you know
I'm biased, but I think this idea of taking on
the regulatory state personally, I do think that is the
way of the future for even the Republican Party. When
you play this forward, you know, four, eight, ten years
(39:48):
down the line.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
But vake Ramaswami always a pleasure, sir.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
Good to see guys like when you pull up, let's
just you know, keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
Ye see what I love it.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
Absolutely thanks. It's the Breakfast Club.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
Wake that answer in the morning at Breakfast Club m
The Breakfast Club News
Hosts And Creators
Charlamagne Tha God
DJ Envy
Jess Hilarious
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.