INTERVIEW: Vivek Ramaswamy Talks DOGE, Elon Musk, Trump, Biden Pardons, Running For Governor of Ohio + More

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Wake that ass up in the morning. Breakfast Club morning.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Everybody is DJ Envy, Jess hilarious, Charlamagne the guy we
are to Breakfast Club lay the ross of filling in
for Jess. And we got a special guest in the building. Yes, indeed,
Vivic Ramswami welcome.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
How you doing man, How you feeling?

Speaker 3 (00:17):
You know, I would say pretty good, except for my
two year old, who usually sleeps really well when he
comes to New York City. The kid does not sleep,
and so when he doesn't sleep, my wife and I
don't sleep. But other than that, the noise, excitement, excitement,
you know, yeah.

Speaker 1 (00:32):
He loves it here.

Speaker 4 (00:33):
He was.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
He was happy this morning.

Speaker 3 (00:35):
But twelve am to about four am, yeah, we were
up playing trucks man.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
But all good doing well.

Speaker 4 (00:42):
This is your first interview on what you said like
a month.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
Yeah, I've been't I haven't been. You know, a lot
a lot going on, but I haven't been out on media.
But you know, people are gonna be hearing more from.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Me starting now.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
Why not you called me, uh over the weekend, I
told you happened to be in the city. So this
worked out well?

Speaker 4 (00:55):
Well, we'll tell us a vic what happened with dog.

Speaker 3 (00:58):
Yes, the congratulations on it job, Thank you man, I
appreciate It's not my job right now.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
I'm moving on to my next No, it was.

Speaker 4 (01:09):
It was.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
It was a slightly.

Speaker 3 (01:12):
Different vision from where we started to where we landed.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
And it's not that it's you know, one's right.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
Or wrong, but if you take a look at where
we began, right DOJ is going to be an outside
body to the government. One of my core areas of
focus throughout has been the constitutional and legal basis for
shutting down the bureaucracy and the federal government and downsizing it.
That's what I focus written my books on, et cetera.
It evolved in more of a direction of a technology

(01:38):
project using a technology first approach, and so Elon and
I were on good terms, we have good personal relationship,
slightly different approaches to the project. And what he and
I both concluded, and I think this is right is
given my focus on law on legislation, the right way
to realize my vision is through elected office, and so
that's what I'm going to be pursuing. We have an

(01:59):
announcement I'll be coming up in the next month, but
that's my next path. The Government of Ohio about that
that's coming up soon, but that was where we all landed.
Was the right way to do this for me was
if I'm focused on constitutional law, deregulation, legislation to downsize government.
That's been my vision for a long time. Let me
realize that I'm my own two feet through elected office.

(02:20):
At the same time, I'm happy to have helped over
the last couple of months to be able to get
this off the ground and a technology first approach from
within the government. Now it's not outside the government. It
made all the sense in the world to make this
the time that we went separate ways.

Speaker 5 (02:33):
So it was true there was an exclusive report in
the Washington port that said you were pushed out because
your vision didn't align with Elon.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
So I would say that we arrived at it pretty mutually,
and mean, I think when it came the doge was
in the government.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
So there's actually a law, it's called the Hatch Act.

Speaker 3 (02:48):
Boring stuff, but you literally can't run for office while
you are in employee of the government.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
Unless you're the president or vice president.

Speaker 3 (02:55):
I've been committed to this path of likely running for
governor of Ohio for a long time. My plan initially
might have been to do those at the same time,
once it became clear that was impossible to do at
the same time, once it became clear to me that
that was the right next leadership destination for me, felt
like the start of the project on day one was
the right way to start that next chapter.

Speaker 1 (03:15):
That's why we did it.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
Now, you did say it. The last couple of months,
you've been focused on getting Trump in office. So now
that he's in office and we've seen the last couple
of days, what are your thoughts and do you still
stand by everything that he's done.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
You know, I really think he's off to a pretty
good start.

Speaker 3 (03:29):
I mean, you think about most presidents, they take a
little bit of time to get warmed up.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
He didn't go through the warm up phase. He got
started right away.

Speaker 3 (03:36):
And I think there's a reason for that, which is
very few presidents have actually been the president before and
then they come all the way back then. Grover Cleveland
was the only one other one who did it, so
he in some ways is coming in for a second term.
But I actually do think those four years of being
able to reflect on what actually mattered to him were
actually pretty good. So I like a lot of what
we've seen in that first week unleash energy production. That's

(03:59):
going to bring down energy prices. It's going to stimulate
the economy, a lot of the regulatory and red tape rollback.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
I think it's just a.

Speaker 3 (04:06):
Good thing for the country. If you travel the country
and you ask most Americans, do you think there's too
much red tape or do you think there's too little
red tape? I don't think there's anybody who would tell
you that I think there's too little red tape.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
I think there's a lot of.

Speaker 3 (04:18):
People, especially business owners, small business owners, that tell you
there's too much red tape. Trump has gone pretty aggressive
even in the first week and saying we're rolling back
a lot of those regulations. We're rolling back the regulations
that hold back energy production in the United States, getting
very serious about the border, and you know, I mean,
I think that you can have your debates about what
the legal immigration policy in the US should look like,

(04:40):
but I think most people are united that we don't
want an open southern border, and yet functionally that's what
it's been for much of the last four years. So
I think it's been a lot of pretty good moves
out the Gate. I'm pretty excited about it.

Speaker 2 (04:50):
What don't you like if there's one thing that you
didn't like that you've seen so far that he's done.

Speaker 3 (04:54):
So, I will say in the first in the first
week out the Gate, I like pretty much everything I've seen.
I think that there are some areas where I could
imagine over the next year I might have some shades
of difference in opinion. There's really nothing in that first week.
All of this stuff struck me as very common sense.
And when you think about what's going to actually make
people's lives better, that's where I'm focused. Okay, economically in

(05:14):
terms of reducing crime, in terms of fixing our border.
What do people across the country actually care about affecting
their lives.

Speaker 1 (05:24):
I think it'd be pretty hard to pick.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
Something that in that first week that I would say
wasn't strictly good for the country.

Speaker 5 (05:30):
How is eliminating government diversity programs like DEI beneficial to
anybody other than it's great white males.

Speaker 3 (05:35):
Oh, I think I think there are some ways in
which is not even beneficial to straight white males, which
I'll tell you about in a second. But I think
this culture of reviving merit in the country is a
very American idea. You and I have talked about this
in some of our some of our discussions here in
the past. I think is America is a country where
you are not judged on the color of your skin.

(05:56):
You ought to be judged on the content of your
character and your contribution. The best person ought to get
the job, regardless of their genetics. That's America at its best.
We haven't always been that. You could argue that we've
never actually been that perfectly. We're an imperfect nation because
we're comprised of human beings and not gods. But I
do think it is a step forward to say that

(06:18):
after we've turned the page on one hundred and sixty
years ago and then sixty years ago with the Civil
Rights Revolution, after we've made all the progress we have,
now is the time not to engage in blaming for
the past or whatever we have been perfect, but to
move forward to say, work country where we want the
best person to get the job without regard to their
skin color, or their sexuality, or their race.

Speaker 1 (06:39):
So I think that's a good thing.

Speaker 3 (06:39):
And the only thing I would tell you that you
might be interested in for the angle you mentioned is
I also think there has been a culture emerging in
the last few years, a culture of excuses amongst people
who say, oh, I didn't get that job because of DEI.
And in certain cases that may be true that certain people,
maybe a white male was denied a job because somebody

(07:00):
else got the job because of racial or gender preferences,
but there's also a lot of instances in which that
provides somebody else a new excuse. And I just want
to no excuses culture across the board, where one of
the side effects of ending DEI is that nobody's going
to have excuses anymore for why they didn't get that
job either. So I just think merit across the board
is the way to go.

Speaker 5 (07:18):
But do you trust people, don't like, do you trust
people enough to say, hey, you know what, I'm not
going to be prejudiced against this person because of their identity.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
I mean, we all have it. Let me say something.
We all have our innate biases, right, we're human beings.
As I said, we're human beings.

Speaker 3 (07:33):
We're not God's were flawed and people have their innate biases.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
But the question is is there a perfect system? Though
there's not, But what's the.

Speaker 3 (07:41):
Least imperfect system, and I think the least imperfect system
is one where we aspire to at least think of
our country through the lens of merit. And what is merit?
I mean we I banded this word around a lot.
I actually got a tough question when I ran for
president as a college kid. I was talking about waxing
eloquent about merit from the stage. Is what is merit?
What is meritocracy? Made me think for a second, you

(08:04):
have to define what you're talking about.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
I think a meritocracy is a system.

Speaker 3 (08:12):
That recognizes that not everybody has the same God given talents.
In fact, it recognizes that everyone has different God given talents.
That's true diversity, that's a beautiful thing. But a meritocracy
is one that says, whatever your unique God given talents are,
you get to achieve the maximum of your potential without
any system standing in your way.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
To me, that's America at its best.

Speaker 3 (08:35):
And so are we going to be perfect as human beings?
In realizing that? I do, of course not, because we're
human beings. But does that mean that we shouldn't at
least do our best to design systems that aspire to it?

Speaker 1 (08:46):
No?

Speaker 3 (08:46):
I think that a step forward is and I'm done.
I'm mostly I'd like to be mostly done. I think
I am done with the DEI debates. I think we've
turned the debate, turned the page on that. I'm interested
in a forward looking conversation about what is equal opportunity.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
Actually, I think.

Speaker 3 (09:01):
That in the debates we've had about equal opportunity versus
equal results, the DEI side of this often has fallen
into equal results camp and people would say, oh, well,
we want equal opportunity, and that was a conservative response.
But now we have to confront the hard work of
what does that actually look like like? What actually does
equality of opportunity whichever acknowledges doesn't exist today?

Speaker 1 (09:23):
How do we actually do that hard work?

Speaker 3 (09:24):
And I think that that's a good result of going
past the group quota DEI regime to have an honest
conversation about the fact that we don't have equal opportunity
across the country early education. Do we have equal opportunity
when it's public schools organized ac quoting to zip codes
rather than actually giving every kid access to the best
education they can have.

Speaker 1 (09:43):
That's not equal opportunity.

Speaker 3 (09:45):
But we haven't been able to have that conversation because
we're having the cosmetic discussion about dei or quotas or whatever.
Now that we're done with that, that hard work can
begin across the board. And I think that that's a
conversation where a lot of thoughtful voices on the left
and right can now roll up our sleeves and say,
we've preached the message of equal opportunity, how do we
actually get there?

Speaker 1 (10:05):
And I, for one, am game for that discussion a.

Speaker 4 (10:08):
Way to get there? You don't think that.

Speaker 3 (10:10):
I think it has proven not to be the way
to get there. I've obviously been an opponent of it
for for four or five years. I'm obviously going to
have biased views on this from what I said, But what.

Speaker 4 (10:17):
Is it exactly the policy?

Speaker 5 (10:19):
Because you need diversity to get there, you need equity
to get there, you need inclusion to get there.

Speaker 3 (10:23):
Yes, So I think part of what happened is when
you when you started using the.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
Capital D capital E capital I.

Speaker 3 (10:29):
Here's what happened is I think in the name of
diversity of thought, right, because that's where you want diversity
of thought in an organization, the capital D diversity actually
ended up saying that certain viewpoints aren't welcome, that we
actually sacrifice true diversity of thought in the name of equity,
which is measured in terms of outcomes.

Speaker 1 (10:48):
I think we.

Speaker 3 (10:48):
Actually sacrificed true equality of opportunity. And then at a
certain place, and this is really where it took a
dark turn to me, is in the name of inclusion,
we created a culture of exclusion where and viewpoints we're
not welcome in an organization. And what that does is
it causes the bottled up emotion to fester. Okay, that
doesn't lead to good places. When you tell somebody shut up,

(11:10):
sit down, and do as your toll keep reviews to yourself,
that actually fosters resentment. And the weirdest thing I think
has happened in the last few years, and I do
actually blame a lot of the DEI and related policies
for this, is that we have seen a reactionary wave
of racism in the country, anti minority racism that would

(11:32):
not have existed but for that DEI culture of not
only taking something away from somebody based on their skin color,
but even worse, in the name of inclusion, saying that
you can't express your view And then there's an ugly
side that comes up in response. So I don't want
this game of tug and war where the war continues
just everybody laid down arms.

Speaker 1 (11:50):
Are we perfect? No we're not.

Speaker 3 (11:51):
But whatever residual racism or prejudice might exist, let it
slowly melt away. As we've been on the course for
the last sixty years of heading in the right direct
and then let's have a substance.

Speaker 1 (12:02):
I think we've been in the right direction obviously in
compared to nineteen sixty. I don't think that it's really debatable.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
We were so so now we're having a healthy discussion
where I think, you know, I think that the rise
of even well intentioned DEI programs, even from those who
had the best of intentions, I think did in retrospect,
I think we can say set us back.

Speaker 4 (12:20):
Not the rise of MAGA and Trump's executive orders from
last week.

Speaker 1 (12:23):
I think the executive orders were last week.

Speaker 3 (12:25):
We're about with this's what we're talking about. So it's
the circle here, which is does ending the DI programs.
Do we think that's a step forward for the country
or not. I think it's a step forward for the country.
Is that the destination? No, it's just the beginning of
a real discussion about equal opportunity that lifts all Americans up.

Speaker 6 (12:40):
And why would you have a conversation about equal opportunity
if they don't even want to have a conversation about diversity,
equity and inclusion. You get what I'm saying, Like, I
understand where you're trying to go with them, but you
can't have one without the other, I think is the point.
And how do you do that? It seems like that'sh
your disconnect even with Doge Right.

Speaker 1 (12:53):
No, I think it a couple of different couple different
topics there. Look, are we a country where we want
equal opportunity every person to achieve the maximum of their
God given potential? Yes, we do. Are we perfect in
realizing that?

Speaker 4 (13:04):
No? Or not?

Speaker 3 (13:05):
Do we think that group quota systems are the right
way to achieve that?

Speaker 1 (13:10):
I'm of the view the answer is no.

Speaker 3 (13:12):
And I think the last few years show us that
it hasn't even been effective in actually empowering the people
it was supposed to empower, while it's created a resentment of.

Speaker 1 (13:20):
A lot of the people who felt deprived. So I
think we got we just got to go to post
We've got to go to post DII world. That ship,
in my opinion, for the better, maybe in other people's opinion,
for the worst. That ship is sailed.

Speaker 3 (13:30):
Now let's look to the future and say, what does
equal opportunity actually look like.

Speaker 1 (13:34):
I'll give you.

Speaker 3 (13:35):
I'll give you one of the areas I'm most passionate about.
I think equal opportunity to a high quality early education
makes a difference. There's a lot of focus on college
and what the college composition needs to be.

Speaker 1 (13:47):
You missed the boat.

Speaker 3 (13:48):
If you're doing this after somebody's already eighteen years old
and in twelfth grade, the.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
Cake is baked.

Speaker 3 (13:53):
This starts young, I mean early childhood. Achievement trajectories are
set in preschool, set in first grades, set in second grade.
There's a massive disparity set at that point in time
based on the quality of schools that somebody in the
inner city is relegated to because they don't have the
choice for better opportunities versus somebody who's in a suburb
with a better public school or access to a private school.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
That is an injustice.

Speaker 3 (14:14):
I think anybody who's really concerned with true quality of
opportunity in this country that's not dealing with that problem
doesn't actually care. It's just they want to pontificate, and
I don't have a lot of patience for that, so
I think that you know, it becomes a buzzword that
goes in one ear out the other when you say
it this way. But universal school choice, it's like people
hear those buzzwords. But when you think about what that means,
it means every kid, no matter their skin color or

(14:35):
what neighborhood they're born in, has at least the opportunity
to get the.

Speaker 1 (14:39):
Best possible education.

Speaker 3 (14:41):
Some of the stuff gets boring, and part of part
of the people is people don't have patience for the
boring stuff. But the boring stuff is what matters. Even
summer break not even a very political topic, right, Summer break,
especially early on, is something that actually causes the educational
achievement gap to widen because people who are well to
do families tend to have programs that enrich their kids,

(15:04):
and so there's a well known phenomenon where when you
come back in the.

Speaker 1 (15:06):
Fall, you have some regress for the kid.

Speaker 3 (15:09):
That regress is small or non existent for people who
can actually afford the right kind of summer programs or
educational programs for those three months. For kids who come
from poorer communities. It's massive. Multiply that twelve times over.
By the time you get to twelfth grade, you have
just different levels of preparedness. I don't care what kind
of quota system in Ivy League university establishes. That's not
really establishing true equality because some of the same people

(15:32):
who are admitted to those programs are doing no better
when they then enter the workforce. Because a lot of
this traced back to equality or inequality of opportunity at
a really young age. And by the way, all against
the backdrop of a lot of people don't pay attention
to this. Actually, I'll just ask you a question just
you have no reason to know the answers that I've
studied this. But what percentage of eighth graders in the

(15:54):
United States today are proficient in math according.

Speaker 1 (15:58):
To international centers? Was that at a eighth grade level?
Eighth grade level? In eighth grade?

Speaker 3 (16:02):
What are what percentage of eighth graders are performing at
what should be an eighth grade level according to international
Developed World standards sixty twenty five percent, twenty five percent
in the United States. So that's just unacceptable. So we're
talking about equality issues. Now, let's just zoom out and
talk about overall achievement issues. Our educational system is not working.
There is a deep failure, and we can debate the

(16:23):
causes and yeah, well, and people, you know, I think,
can can often get a little bit upset. I've had
the experience of people getting upset when you when you
confront these questions. But I care about this country too
much to just look passively at that and look the
other way, because it doesn't make people feel good. And
you know, a classic response is to blame a lot
of that on woken doctrination or whatever. And I'm against

(16:44):
all of the woken doctrination at a young age. But
that's not the real issue here. The real issue is
just an achievement problem.

Speaker 1 (16:48):
In the United States.

Speaker 3 (16:50):
And that doesn't start in high school, it doesn't start
in college. It starts young. And so I just see
an opportunity right now where we can make the choice
to enter a new golden age in America. You can
make a choice to say this is our Sputnik moment.
Right you look at just the news of today.

Speaker 1 (17:07):
I don't know how much you've.

Speaker 3 (17:10):
Taken a look at it, but deep seek coming out
of China right completely mop the floor with respect to
a cost by which they were able to get to
apparently similar maybe even if not in some ways better
AI production than a lot of capital that's gone into
achieve the same thing for computing power investment in the US.
These are good opportunities for us not to be ashamed

(17:31):
or to be angry, but to wake up and say
we should have the humility to admit that we still
have room for improvement. I say this as somebody who
believes this is the greatest country known to the history
of mankind. It is the only country I will ever
pledge allegiance to. It is the country I will die
fighting for if I have to. But we should still,

(17:52):
out of our love.

Speaker 1 (17:53):
For this country, have the ability to have humility to say, Okay,
here are the ways we still need to improve. And frankly,
I don't think that that's up. It's not a preacher
to the left or to the right.

Speaker 3 (18:05):
I think it's just a wake up call for all
of us, and that's kind of what I'm interested in delivering.

Speaker 6 (18:09):
I think people just get nervous when there's no systems
in place like what d I should have been if
it was done the right way, because then there's you
think that there's going to be no trickle down because
what you're talking about to affect people before they get
to eighth grade, you have to have people that were
able to go to these schools, were able to have
your certain experiences, come back to the communities, teach, build
different administrations. There's a whole system that people think won't
fall back down.

Speaker 4 (18:30):
You can't trust white supremacy. Yeah.

Speaker 6 (18:31):
So it's like even when you like with the Dulge thing,
right and you back and a way. Now I'm be
listening to you, I'm like, oh, it sounds like y'all
didn't agree because morally you want to do right. I
don't know if I believe that Elon Musk in a
Trump cabinet wants.

Speaker 4 (18:43):
To do that.

Speaker 3 (18:43):
Well on that front, let me just say I think
we all share an opposition to bureaucracy. And by the way,
you think about how bureaucracy hurts even the least well
off among us, it actually hurts the least well off
among us the most. I don't want to get too
much in details unless you're interested in this, but take
housing costs in the country, right, Why are housing costs spiking?
It's because of bureaucracy. And red tape that's stopping new

(19:05):
housing construction. There's all these zoning limitations, there's all kinds
of limitations for single family homes. For smaller homes, it's
really hard to build one, and a lot of that
comes from regulatory red tape. So on the stuff relating
to cutting back red tape and bureaucracy and regulations, I
don't view that as a left versus right issue. In fact,
one of the things I loved in the time period
that I was helpful involving setting up Doughs was how

(19:28):
many Democrats also said, hey, you know what, there's actually
a lot of issues that we care about where bureaucracy
is getting in the way as well that raise their hand.

Speaker 1 (19:35):
So that I think is just a strictly good efficiency
and elimination of bureaucracy. I think is good across the board.

Speaker 3 (19:41):
As it relates to getting serious though about addressing root
inequality causes in the United States, I think a lot
of people enjoy being on one political side or the
other without actually rolling up their sleeves and doing the
hard work of getting to the root cause. I think
the root cause starts with education at a really young
age in a stable family foundation from which those kids

(20:02):
are able to grow up and have access to the
same opportunities as anybody else. And if you got to
a place where every kid at the age of four,
I'm not even talking about the age of ten. In
some sense, it's already it's already partially baked by then.
But at the age of four, when they enter preschool,
has a chance to enter the best possible school that
somebody else would have to enter, but they have to

(20:23):
pay the actual tuition to get there. I think we've
made massive progress towards restoring to.

Speaker 1 (20:29):
Equality of opportunity in the US.

Speaker 3 (20:31):
What does that mean. That means that literally you have
to provide money to the families who are stuck in
a bad public school to be able to opt out
of that school. Transportation included, the ability to pay tuition included.
That is an investment that we make both in the
overall future of our country and an equality of opportunity.
I think we should be more vocal about standing for that.

(20:53):
I certainly for one plan to be by.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
The way, A lot of this is done not at
the federal level.

Speaker 3 (20:57):
A lot of this is done at the state level,
which gives you a sense of where or part of
the reason I've been drawn in my own journey to say,
if I actually care about addressing these issues and not
talking about them, there's actually a lot more than a
governor is able to accomplish on a practical level than
even somebody sitting at the federal level.

Speaker 1 (21:13):
And so that's part of what I feel.

Speaker 5 (21:14):
Are you able to have these conversations though, because I mean,
you know, you do get to the root of these issues.
But when you try to do it and you criticize
the US for its cultural emphasis on mediocrity over excellent,
Maggie and conservatives lost their mind, and a lot of
people say, that's the reason you got pushed out adults.

Speaker 1 (21:30):
Yeah, so I will tell you this is I would rather.

Speaker 3 (21:36):
Speak the truth and lose than to pander to an audience,
to tell them what they want to hear.

Speaker 1 (21:42):
It's like an old expression. I think it might have
been Thomas Soule who said this. Actually, you know him.

Speaker 3 (21:46):
Very smart man. I think he's doing it to this.
If you care about somebody, you tell him the truth.
If you care about yourself, you tell them what they
want to hear. I would rather speak hard truth and
take the chance of losing an election than to somehow
win by just saying what you're supposed to say. Now,
my view on this is America is an excellent country.

(22:09):
I mean, America is defined by the pursuit of excellence.
And it's an interesting question about American identity. Right, if
you go to Italy, what's the Italian identity? It's the
heritage of people who grew up in Italy. Japan, it's
the heritage of people grew up in Japan. There's a
language that binds them, a unique language of Italian or Japanese.
And that's a beautiful thing. But what's America in that context?

Speaker 1 (22:28):
Right?

Speaker 3 (22:28):
What is the American identity? I don't think it comes
down to the national identities of other countries, of a
cuisine or an ethnic lineage. Even our land is relatively different, right,
Our land today is very different than it was just
two hundred and fifty years ago, than it was even
one hundred and sixty years ago. Then we added Alaska,
then we added Hawaii. Maybe we're going to add some
more soon. So I think that America is not defined

(22:52):
in the same way that other countries are. I think
America is defined for most based on the set of
ideals that bind all of us together despite our different genetics.
That's what makes America special. And one of those ideals
is the pursuit of excellence, the idea that you are
able to achieve whatever you want without any government or

(23:12):
bureaucracy standing in your way, that the best person gets
the job, that you get to speak your mind in
the open without somebody telling you you can't speak your mind.
Those are the ideals that make America itself.

Speaker 4 (23:24):
We don't live up to that. We don't live up
to them often.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
We often don't live of course not.

Speaker 3 (23:28):
But I would rather live in a country that has
ideals and falls short of them than a country that
has no ideals at all.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
So you could say we're hypocrite. You can only be
a hypocrite if you have ideals.

Speaker 3 (23:39):
So I would rather as as a nation, be hypocritical
and have ideals rather than not have ideals and therefore
not be a hypocrite.

Speaker 1 (23:45):
Right. And so that's a tough message, and it lands
in different directions.

Speaker 4 (23:49):
Right.

Speaker 3 (23:50):
I would go so far as to call it my
battle against the woke left four years ago was a
tough message. In people on the other side had resistance
to that message. Of what I still consider to be
tough love, but love at the core of it. I'd
say the same thing with respect to my more recent commentary.
Here comes from a place of love for this country,
and I love this country too much, so much as

(24:12):
h one to b tweets, Well, I didn't talking about
I mean that was talking about American excellence, right, about
the idea that I do think we need to light
a fire under the feet of our culture, right, I
do think we need to light a fire and celebrate
excellence in every domain, by the way, not just not
just academics, sports, music, the arts, but to celebrate winning,
to celebrate the person who is a striver. I don't

(24:33):
think it should be a bad thing in America to
be a striver, right. That word has a negative connotation
to it a little bit today. Our founding fathers were strivers.
Our culture was built by strivers, right, Neil Armstrong and
John Glenn, the people from my home state went to
outer space at the frontier. We are a culture of strivers,
the best athletes. I mean, look at the legacy of
Michael Jordan. He was a guy who worked hard and

(24:54):
was unapologetic about the fact that he wanted to win
and would do whatever is required to work hard to
do it, same thing with respect or engineering talent. That's
the culture that I think we can revive in this country.
I think it's necessary to revive in this country if
we're going to compete against China. It's like a parent
when you're talking to your kids. Sometimes the message you
deliver is not well received. When they hear it, you
know it comes from a place of love.

Speaker 4 (25:15):
But Magan conservatives didn't want to hear that at all.

Speaker 5 (25:17):
And it seems like when you chastise others for cultural concern,
it's wildly accepted. But when you attack saved by the
Bell and white culture, you got sidelines.

Speaker 1 (25:26):
I'll tell you this is I'm consistent three to sixty degrees.
This is what I will what I'll give you all that.

Speaker 4 (25:31):
You shocked by the response, you know, I like taking
it back like.

Speaker 3 (25:34):
Damn, you know, if I think about it, I've been
around American politics for a little bit. Did I know
the message that I was delivering was going to make
some people upset?

Speaker 1 (25:46):
I did.

Speaker 3 (25:48):
My goal was not to make people upset for the
sake of making people upset. My goal is looking at
our country and saying, how do we light a fire
under the feet of our nation to be able to
aspire to be the very best again and do it
consistently as you said. You know, I've talked to the
woke left for years, and if I put the word
woke in that you know message several times, many of
the people say people were cheering for a long time

(26:10):
when I delivered the same message in a different way.
I'm just against victimhood culture across the board. We're not
a nation of victims.

Speaker 4 (26:16):
Even when the victims are magnet and Conservatives like victims.
When you put the.

Speaker 1 (26:20):
Look that I'm against it, I'm against any kind of
victimhood most most of the time.

Speaker 3 (26:25):
For the last four years, if I'm being honest, I
think the dominant strain of victimhood has been a left
wing victimhood. But there is I wrote a book called
Nation of Victims a few years ago that had chapter
called conservative victimhood.

Speaker 1 (26:35):
We're not a nation of victims. We are victors, not victims.
That's who we are at our very best. That's the
American way. And I do think that when you think
about what are those.

Speaker 3 (26:43):
American qualities, hard work, self determination, self reliance, not victimhood
culture that gives you a greater claim on the government.
And you could see this across the political spectrum. I
don't think that we win this country back by greater
dependence on our government. We win this country back by
greater in dependence from it, through reviving our self confidence
to stand on our own two feet. To teach our

(27:04):
kids the way you get ahead isn't to see yourself
as a victim and to play that as a as
a card that gets you ahead, but instead to see
yourself as a winner and somebody who isn't going to
be bullied by your circumstances. The number one person where
would I tell my kids?

Speaker 4 (27:18):
Right?

Speaker 3 (27:18):
The number one person or the number one factor that
determines whether you achieve your goals in life, not saying
it's the only one, But the number one factor that
determines whether you achieve what you want in.

Speaker 1 (27:29):
Life is you. Let me no doubt about it.

Speaker 3 (27:31):
And so it's not it's not your race, or your gender,
or your sexuality, or the climate or the weather, or
somebody from some other country.

Speaker 1 (27:38):
It is you.

Speaker 4 (27:39):
All the things won't play apart. But I agree it.

Speaker 3 (27:41):
Yeah, i'd say didn't play a part, But I said,
the number one is you, and so that's the culture
where whether it's in some ways it was the same
message delivered slightly differently and got a very different reaction.
But I believe I have been deeply consistent in delivering
this message.

Speaker 1 (27:58):
For a long time. And the reason why is and
by the way, on the justtion you brought up one B,
H one B is a broken system. Right.

Speaker 3 (28:06):
So the funny thing about this people say, O, why
didn't you criticize H one B and his tweet. I've
been saying this about a hundred times, maybe for the
last couple of years, probably hundreds of times. It's broken
in a bunch of boring ways. They use a lottery
instead of picking the very best ones. It's got an
indentured servitude problem where if a company sponsors you and
you come from another country, you can't leave that company,

(28:26):
so you don't actually have a competitive labor market. All
those things need to be fixed, and I have been,
I would argue, among the biggest proponents, if not the
biggest voice, in favor of fixing those things. But that's
a technical issue about fixing some H one B system.
But the deeper question is are we a country that
believes America ought to be number one, that we want

(28:46):
the best people in this country, cultivated in a homegrown way,
and then to fill the gaps with the best and
brightest from the rest of the world as well to
come here and be Americans and pledge leads ins to
this country.

Speaker 4 (28:57):
That's us.

Speaker 1 (28:58):
Of course, that's the best.

Speaker 2 (28:59):
But let me ask you, what were your thoughts on
and you claim to be an honest person like that
when Donald Trump signed off on the people that tried
to overdo the.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Government signed off. Here's here's my view.

Speaker 2 (29:13):
And then I want to ask you what did you
think when Joe Biden pardoned, you know, his son and
his family members as well. So let's start wait with Trump.

Speaker 1 (29:19):
So here's my view.

Speaker 2 (29:20):
They try to overdo the government, which is totally against law.

Speaker 3 (29:23):
So let's time. I've turning the page. I'll give I'll
give you, I'll give it to you, give it to
you straight.

Speaker 4 (29:28):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (29:29):
I think that there were many people there's a rabbit hole.
We could have an hour on this, and I don't
really I don't really think it's even all that relevant anymore.
There were a lot of people who didn't do a
thing that was wrong that ended up being ensnared in
getting locked up, getting prosecuted for peacefully without any weapons,

(29:50):
exercising their First Amendment rights. And as a country were
country that celebrates political dissent and opposition, people who never
entered the capitol, people who never hurt anybody, people who
were unarmed walking on the Capitol grounds. And it was
just sloppy the way the whole thing was. Yeah, And
I think that those kind of peaceful protesters, the fact
that they were ensnared and had their due process rights
denied is an affront. And I say that as somebody

(30:12):
who I'm a civil libertarian. I believe the same is
true for left wing protesters. I think the same thing
has been true for civil rights protesters sixty years ago.
I think the same thing was true for peaceful protesters
on January sixth. So then when you when you look
at it holistically, right, it was so messy in the
way that it was handled. There were so many also
unanswered questions and some stuff that didn't smell great.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
Like if you look at the first.

Speaker 3 (30:36):
Thing that came out from the Inspector General's report only
came out a few weeks a couple weeks before Trump
took office. How many FBI informants and affiliated people were
in that audience.

Speaker 1 (30:48):
It didn't smell good, and that came out.

Speaker 3 (30:50):
You said that two years ago that was considered a
bad conspiracy theory. But now they came out with the
Inspector General report saying that they weren't transparent with the public.
There was enough that the government did that smelled rotten
there that in the interest of just turning the page,
you know what I think would have been the best
outcome for the country. Here's here's something that would have
been the best outcome. But I think we got to

(31:10):
your second best outcome. I said this before Biden left office.
I think if Joe Biden had not pardoned his family member,
but had pardoned the January sixth protesters in one of
his final acts to say that I've been critical of this,
but in the interest of moving the country forward, as
I'm leaving the office, I'm turning the page and looking

(31:31):
into the future. And then Donald Trump takes office and
pardons the Biden family for any alleged defenses.

Speaker 1 (31:36):
That would have been I think the best case scenario
for the country. People we had, we had the.

Speaker 4 (31:40):
They were some of them were insurrectionists.

Speaker 5 (31:42):
And I mean there's actual people who are denying pardons
because they said, no, we committed a cross.

Speaker 6 (31:46):
Yes, there was a woman who did a hosted that interview,
so we did really horrible things. People died.

Speaker 3 (31:50):
I heard her interview, and so to that, you will
say there.

Speaker 1 (31:53):
Were people who were.

Speaker 2 (31:55):
Decision and peaceful, but then we've seen people that have
the gates ran up in there, running in people's.

Speaker 1 (31:59):
Office as well.

Speaker 4 (32:00):
I think had the best reason.

Speaker 5 (32:01):
And what jade Van said this before Trump did the part,
and he said that we're going to look at every
We're not going to pardon all the January sixth insurrections.
We're going to look at it on a case by case.
He's a case by case and see who needs to
be part and who doesn't.

Speaker 3 (32:13):
And that's what I That's what I had said for
the last couple of years as well. I do think
that when we're also moving quickly with respect to Trump
talking about a new golden age for the country, that's
what we all want, right, We want a country where
the issues were focused on is what affects people in
their everyday lives. The conversation about lifting people up economically
and educationally.

Speaker 1 (32:31):
I think it is in.

Speaker 3 (32:33):
That spirit to say that we're just turning the page
and moving the nation forward. I understand the decision to
do it not on a case by case basis, but
on a blanket basis.

Speaker 1 (32:42):
I understand when.

Speaker 4 (32:43):
It's coming up actual criminals. Like one of the guys
got out and went right.

Speaker 3 (32:46):
Back to just by definition, just so we're talking about
the same thing. By definition, anybody who gets a pardon
is getting a pardon, many of them. Anybody who gets
a pardon after a conviction means they were convicted, right,
So there are hundreds of president of pardons. Biden I
should most more pardon than any president has in his
final month leaving office. Every president issues pardons. But part

(33:06):
of the reason the president has a pardon power is
the job of the president is actually.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
To look after the country.

Speaker 3 (33:11):
The job of a jury and a judge in a
case is to look after that individual case. But a
president is a steward of a country and to say
what's in the best overall interest in the country. That's
why the president is a pardon power. So everybody who
a president has ever pardoned is by definition of criminal.
The question is even in the face of somebody being
a criminal by definition of having committed some crime, take

(33:31):
a big step back and say, notwithstanding that, is it
in the interest of a nation to be able to
pardon that person and move forward. That's the judgment that
belongs on a president's shoulders. And when you look at
the agenda that President Trump wants to pursue, and he
wants to be ambitious about that and say I just
want to turn the page on the past and move forward,
I understand that decision, and I think that looking at

(33:51):
a case by case would have been a reasonable approach.
I think that going blanket pardon and turning the page
is also a reasonable approach. But what I do is
that we're not going to see. I want to make
this claim right now, and I think I will be
proven right I certainly hope.

Speaker 1 (34:06):
I'm gonna be proven right now. I expect I will.

Speaker 3 (34:08):
There was a lot of fear mongering over the last
couple of years, and some people still have the fear that, Okay,
Donald Trump is going to go after his political opponents
and whatever. I can tell you solidly that just ain't
gonna happen, and you can roast me a year from
now if we're wrong about that is not gonna happen.

Speaker 1 (34:24):
And I think that that's that's the spirit of that decision.
All that fits together.

Speaker 3 (34:28):
Is to say, we've had a kind of a toxic
chapter over the last four years as a country. You
have a guy who is all kinds of unprecedent things
have happened, right who himself was the subject of four
prosecutions by the government, has been censored before that while
he was leaving office, and the President of the United
States couldn't even speak all that. Let's not really negate it.
Let's turn the page. Let's move forward. And I think

(34:49):
that is something that if we stay true to that promise,
everybody can get behind. And I will tell you that
a lot of a lot of people earnestly have the fear.

Speaker 1 (34:59):
I could say it's created by the me or whatever.

Speaker 3 (35:00):
But to say that, oh, now Donald Trump's going to
prosecute as political opponents, Now, it's not going to work
that way. The way it's going to work is we're
moving forward to say what actually lifts up all Americans.
It's part of why you had a coalition, which I
thought was pretty cool.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
This time around.

Speaker 3 (35:12):
You got a lot of former independence black voters, Hispanic voters,
first generation Americans. It was there was a different kind
of coalition. It wasn't yesterday's Republican Party. That I hope
gives us a shot at unifying the country. It gives
us the best shot I think we've had in a
long time.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
I'd love to see it.

Speaker 5 (35:27):
Let's talk about how do you how do you advocate
for ending birthright citizenship when both your parents were illegal
and non citizens were legal.

Speaker 1 (35:37):
They were legal. Yeah, that's right, that's right when they
gave the country. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (35:42):
So my view, and I've been pretty consistent on this,
is that birthright citizenship should not be granted to the
kids of.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
Illegals in this country.

Speaker 3 (35:52):
Therese, birthright citizenship means, just to get everyone on the
same page, it means if you're physically born in the country,
you're automatically a citizen. And that's been part of the
long standing tradition of the country within certain guardrails. So
I'll give you one that nobody contests. Let's say you're
the kid of a Mexican diplomat. All right, it's a
guy who's legally physically in the country, but he is

(36:13):
the ambassador from Mexico. Or Panama or whatever country to
the US. They happen to have a baby while they're here,
is that baby a citizen of the United States?

Speaker 1 (36:21):
Nobody thinks. The answer to that is yes.

Speaker 3 (36:22):
If you're a diplomat from Mexico or a government official
from another country, but physically the baby happens to be
born here, you're still a citizen out of other country.
And goes to the fourteenth Amendment, it says, are you
subject to the laws and jurisdiction thereof, then you're a citizen.

Speaker 1 (36:34):
That's what it says.

Speaker 3 (36:35):
So by similar analogy, if somebody who's an ambassador from
Mexico or is in this country legally but doesn't enjoy
birthright citizenship because they're still subject to the laws and
jurisdiction of the other country, then the question is if
somebody entered this country illegal, or let's just say it,
take another one, if somebody is a foreign invader to
the country.

Speaker 1 (36:53):
Right, Let's say you have a foreign invasion of the
country but includes a pregnant woman and she.

Speaker 3 (36:56):
Happens to have a baby here. Nobody thinks that baby
enjoys birthright citizenship. So then the question is if somebody
broke the law when entering the country. Right that they're
active entering the country was a violation of our laws.
Are they really subject to the jurisdiction and law in
the same way if they have their kid in the country,
that kid does not automatically enjoy birthright. That's in my position,

(37:16):
I think it's a reasonable position.

Speaker 6 (37:18):
Why is it that moving forward, you would want an
administration to pick and choose, like when they give opportunities.
So for instance, like what if I'm here.

Speaker 1 (37:26):
Illegally, I have my kid here legally.

Speaker 6 (37:29):
No, I'm here illegally, Okay, hypothetically if I'm here illegally, right,
I did whatever I had to do to get here
just because of whatever my circumstances are. I'm not committing
crimes while I'm here. I'm working the best I can,
just trying to raise my kid. My kid is doing amazing.
I'm providing a better life. Right, And then all of
a sudden, now because Trump is in office, it's like, no,
my kid has to go back to whatever circumstances we
came from, not too much set up because they're no

(37:50):
longer a citizen.

Speaker 1 (37:51):
So on things.

Speaker 3 (37:52):
If you look at President Trump's recent commentary in some
of his interviews even leading up to take an office,
he himself has drawn a distinction between people have been
here for a really long time and established roots versus
people who have come super recently to the country. Right
in the Dreamer's Program, you talked about how people have
been here for a long time. We could have our
own debates about what my own views even are on that,

(38:13):
but let's just take start with the easy.

Speaker 1 (38:14):
Low hanging fruit.

Speaker 3 (38:15):
If somebody is a criminal, should they be if somebody
commits a crime while they're here and they entered illegally,
should they.

Speaker 1 (38:20):
Be automatically deporting? I just want to and then we
just go straight down the way.

Speaker 6 (38:23):
Yeah, we're not going to argue that point because that's
that's kind of like a that's an easy point, though.
I know, I think where I'm getting confused with you
as like you, even if.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
It's a few years, I would say the same thing.

Speaker 3 (38:30):
So if somebody has come here and it hasn't been
that long, So we're talking about, you know, double digit
millions of people who have come here illegally under Biden's tenure,
those people have not established roots in the United States, right,
those people should have followed a different route and by
the way, there are millions more who didn't come here,
who did not come here illegally because they were trying
to do it the right way. They're the ones we

(38:52):
kept out, and the ones who lied or broke the
rules are the ones who we let in. That's not right, right,
So I think that's sending all of the people who
at least entered ill legally under Biden's tenure just recently.
Even if it's just taking in the last two years,
that is millions of people. So even if we just
said over the last eighteen months, the people who entered
this country illegally have to go back to their country
of origin they haven't established roots in eighteen months, that

(39:13):
alone would be the largest mass deportation in American history.
Now you want to go beyond that, we could argue
the details, but that alone is literally the largest mass
deportation in American history.

Speaker 1 (39:23):
And I think most people are in favor of it
to say that that's fair.

Speaker 5 (39:25):
So why our House Republican is divided on this because
it seems weird that you would want to fight the
in birthright citizenship now, especially when you've made so many
scries or dispanding vodists.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
So I'm not following we necessarily what the House Republicans
are divided on per se. But what I will tell
you is I think most people if explained right, because
I think the problem with this is it can become
a pretty emotional conversation. If you just objectively look at
the low hanging fruit that we all agree with, that's
actually pretty far from where we are today.

Speaker 3 (39:53):
If you look at somebody who entered this country illegally,
does their kid automatically get birthright citizenship?

Speaker 1 (39:58):
Going forward?

Speaker 3 (39:59):
We can't even change the past, right, because those are
the rules of the past, But at least going forward
we will say that anybody knew who entered this country
illegally and their kid's born here doesn't enjoy birthright citizenship
without even a change to the past.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
I think most people agree with that. Somebody who entered
in the last eighteen months, pretty recent.

Speaker 4 (40:15):
This is what you're sitting the back.

Speaker 1 (40:16):
It's millions of people illegally should think about.

Speaker 5 (40:18):
Illegals abusing birth right citizenship. That's what that's what you're
I mean.

Speaker 3 (40:22):
I think I think somebody who comes here illegally and
has a kid here, that kid should not enjoy birthright citizenship,
especially if the government has said so.

Speaker 1 (40:30):
So in the past you could say it was vague.
That's a separate debate. But going forward, to lay the
marker down and say, going forward from this date forward,
somebody who enters the country illegally and has a kid here,
that kid does not automatically enjoy birthright citizenship, I think
is a very reasonable position.

Speaker 4 (40:44):
So that wouldn't that be you know, since your parents
were not.

Speaker 3 (40:46):
Citizens, they were legal So it's one thing if you
you apply to the government, you followed the legal process.
There's a lot of paperwork involved, there's a vetting, and
I'm saying I'm saying in that that's a separate point
in the deportations. So in the deportations, let's just start,
aren't there. Okay, If you look at how many people
came into this country illegally, illegally in the last eighteen months, okay,

(41:07):
the last year and a half of Biden's ten year alone,
that is millions, not a million, millions of people. There's
no argument to be made that those people somehow establish
roots in the country in eighteen months or in two years.
If every one of those people were returned to their country,
of origin respectfully. You're not trying to mistreat anybody or

(41:27):
anything else, but in a respectful, humane manner, is returned
to their country of origin. That alone would be the
largest mass deportation in American history by far. Going forward,
you send the signal that we're not open for illegal
immigration anymore.

Speaker 1 (41:42):
And this is not dehumanizing anybody.

Speaker 3 (41:44):
Frankly, if any of us were in the position of
somebody sitting in Guatemala or Venezuela or Colombia and the
US government's given you a wink and a nod, who knows,
maybe many of us would do the same thing to
have a better life for our family. So I'm not
blaming anybody other than the US government. But now the
US government can be clear to say that no, we're
not open for illegal entry. We have a sealed border,
there's no funding for sanctuary cities, there's no welfare or

(42:06):
benefits for people who enter this country illegally. And if
you enter illegally, you will be returned to your country
of origin. What's going to happen is you're going to
see a lot fewer people even trying to come.

Speaker 2 (42:15):
What if your country's not accepting you back, like we'
seen you what Mexico we s.

Speaker 3 (42:18):
I think those countries need to start accepting them back.
And that's where the US has leverage to say that
we all got to play by the same set of
rules here because a lot of those countries, for example,
in Central America right there's this area called the Dairyan Past.
It's like a jungle area which used to be closed.
Now there's a massive north and flow migrants.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
Many of those countries are recipients of US foreign aid.
What does that mean.

Speaker 3 (42:39):
It means we're literally given our taxpayer money as aid
just as a check to those countries. It's a free check,
free money to those countries. I don't think we should
be given free money to those countries unless they're also
at minimum doing their part to also seal their borders.
So we have levers to be able to have a
reasonable discussion with other countries. And I think that that's
something I mean to be overly partisan about this, but

(43:01):
I think that was something we're missing under the Biden years,
which is that we kind of were just jelly spined
with other countries.

Speaker 1 (43:07):
Right.

Speaker 3 (43:07):
We let other countries walk all over us agree, and
I don't think that standing for American interests. And by
the way, American interest doesn't mean some segment of America
people agree with me. I'm talking about all Americans interests,
regardless of skin color, regardless of political affiliation. If you're American,
we're going to stand for your interests because that's what
an elected leader of the United States has responsibility to do.
Not give away your tax payer money when we're thirty

(43:28):
six trillion dollars of debt in the whole to some
other country that isn't even doing what they're supposed to
do with respect to blocking their own borders on the
way to the United States.

Speaker 1 (43:36):
That doesn't make sense.

Speaker 3 (43:36):
So I think that a lot of this is common sense.
A restoration of common sense is the path back to
American greatness.

Speaker 5 (43:42):
I agree with what you said about people being jelly
spine under the Biden administration, But do you think it's
smart for Trump to start a trade war on day six?

Speaker 3 (43:51):
So the thing about the thing to understand about Donald
Trump if you look at his first term, the thing
I love about the second term is you don't have
to do a lot of guessing about Donald Trump like
you would with a new president you had a first term.
He is a tough negotiator on the international stage, right,
And so I believe there's there's probably three camps on
this issue of tariffs. If this gets to uh, we

(44:14):
don't switch the subject any time, let me know, but
this is worth probably going into. One is that I
think a silly view to say it's like the turn
of the other cheek mentality, which is, even if another
country is screwing us over by charging tariffs on our
goods that go to those countries, we're going to pretend
like they don't and not charge tariffs for them coming
to their goods coming to our country. That's the turn

(44:34):
of the other cheek model. And some people favor this
because they say it still makes the global pie a
little bit bigger. I don't favor that. The other model
is to say that, okay, we're gonna at least have reciprocity,
which means same standards both ways. If you're another country
and you're applying tariffs to us, and not just tariffs,
but maybe you're doing state sponsored subsidies to your businesses,
but we don't do them here, so it's an uneven

(44:55):
playing field for those businesses. Then we're going to level
the playing field. I think that is totally legitimate. In fact,
I think in most cases that makes sense. Then there's
a third camp, which says that even if the other
country isn't really being unfair to us, we're just going
to put up barriers in a way that I think
is actually harmful, usually to the United States. So I
think camp number two is super pragmatic to say that

(45:18):
everybody's got to plan a level playing field. You don't
get two sets of rules, one for the rest of the.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
World to one for America.

Speaker 3 (45:23):
If we're going to be a trading partner and you're
going to be a long run economic partner in the
United States, great, let's play by the same set of rules.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
That's fair game.

Speaker 3 (45:31):
That's different from and I will admit there are a
lot of people on the left and on the right
who prefer the other camp to say that, okay, we
should make sure that only things are ever made in
the United States, even if it could better advance the
interests of American citizens to be able to have access
to broader goods and bring costs down if the other
country's played by the same set of rules, I don't.

Speaker 1 (45:52):
Think that we should be we should be.

Speaker 3 (45:54):
Penalizing ourselves and shooting ourselves and notes what the expression
has cut your nose.

Speaker 1 (45:57):
Despite your face. I don't think we should do that.

Speaker 3 (46:00):
But if you look at Donald Trump's record, I'm not
talking about rhetoric on social media or with some supporter
somewhere of Donald Trump might have an opinion. If it's
a big coalition here, a lot of people have a
lot of different opinions. But Donald Trump has been super
pragmatic as a businessman on these trade issues.

Speaker 1 (46:14):
And sometimes when you're.

Speaker 3 (46:14):
In negotiation, you got to be able to play a
hard card to be able to get to the place
where you want to get. So I have no problem
with that as long as the place where we land
advances the interests of all America.

Speaker 5 (46:25):
Because how are you going to make things more affordable,
like housing when you've got tariffs on everything?

Speaker 1 (46:30):
Yeah, so I think. Look, I think the question is
if another country I think you probably agree with me
on this, If another country applies a tariff to the
United States, do you think that we should apply the
same tariff in return or not?

Speaker 4 (46:42):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (46:43):
Yeah, I think yes. So's it's that simple.

Speaker 3 (46:46):
The only thing that's a slightly a little more complicated
was just a slight wrinkle to that is sometimes the
other country may not be applying a strictly speaking tariff,
but it functionally is a tariff because their government supports
their industries, so they may make them state sponsored industries
with their own taxpair dollars. But we don't do that
here because we believe in true competitive markets and capitalism.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
That is like a tariff because effectively it props up
the other country's company to make it look like it's
better than the US company, when in fact the company
isn't actually that much better. It's just using their taxpair
dollars to do it.

Speaker 3 (47:18):
Oh and by the way, we're often giving foreign hate
to that very country, which allows them to have extra
taxpayer dollars to spend. So that's the only wrinkle. Is
either a tariff or a tariff like unfairness. That's what
we've been on the receiving end of for a long
time to make.

Speaker 4 (47:31):
Things more affordable for people with are on average.

Speaker 3 (47:33):
So I think what's going to happen, What typically historically
plays itself out is that that other country then says,
oh crap, we're actually going to be screwed in a
lot worse off. Let's now play by the same set
of rules, because we're not going to be getting away
with arbitrage in the United States of America anymore. If
we got away with it for a little while, we're
not going to get away with it anymore. And then

(47:54):
both countries are actually able to have a cleaner trading
relationship than not. There's one wrinkle to this, I think.

Speaker 1 (48:03):
I think most of that pretty hapen. Most of that
happens pretty quickly. If you study the history of these
trade deals with.

Speaker 3 (48:06):
The companies quickly with Columbia, ye sure, in history historically,
and if you look for one hundred years, the way
these things play out, it happens very I mean it happens.

Speaker 1 (48:14):
It's relatively instant for correcting itself.

Speaker 3 (48:17):
The one exception to all of this, which you know,
I favor, I think is important to us, is with
respect to China.

Speaker 1 (48:23):
That's different from other countries.

Speaker 3 (48:24):
Not Japan or South Korea, or India, or the Philippines
or South America. China is in a different category where
I don't think we should put ourselves in a position
to rely on China for anything that is critical to
our national security.

Speaker 1 (48:41):
Take our own military. It's crazy.

Speaker 3 (48:43):
The following is crazy fact, the number one supplier to
our Department of Defense of semiconductors is actually China. Our
own military industrial base cannot exist without a Chinese dependent
supply chain. That doesn't make any sense because the whole
reason you a military industrial base is to potentially protect
yourself against an adversary. It makes literally no sense if

(49:06):
you depend on that very adversary for your own military
industrial base. And I would say the same for the
pharmaceutical supply chain, which is a pretty critical supply chain,
especially in a week where even the CIA has now
confirmed that COVID came from a lab in China. Really,
that's the same country that you want to have ninety
five percent your ibuprofen coming from, which is what it
is today. That doesn't make sense, so I put China
in a different category. But then the irony on this

(49:27):
is that if you really want to declare economic independence
from China in those critical sectors, that actually means you
need more, not less trade with other countries like Japan
and South Korea and Vietnam and India and other countries
in Brazil. You actually want to bring as much as

(49:47):
you can to the US, but you've got to supplement
that with other countries that can also fill those gaps,
and so it gets more nuanced more quickly and depends
on what your priorities are. If your priorities are national
security of the United States and also the economic best
interests in the United States, I think what that means
is you don't let other countries exploit us. You play
by the same set of rules. In the case of China,
you can't depend on an adversary for critical sectors. That

(50:10):
means more onshoreing to the United States. But it also
means more, not less, trade with a lot of our
allies to fill those gaps. So I think that's a
rational course forward. And this is a good conversation because
actually usually people don't get to this level of the conversation.
It's just you know, is trade war good or bad?
When in fact it's for what purpose?

Speaker 1 (50:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (50:29):
Yeah, exactly if oh yeah, question for you on trade war,
like why do we even because for instance, with Columbia, right,
I saw a Boocari Sellers tweeted in response to Tim Scott.
Tim Scott came out and supported with Trump did with Columbia.
The car Sellers was like with Biden, we didn't have
to do that, like they accepted four hundred and seventy
five deportation flights under Biden, more than one hundred and
twenty and twenty twenty four alone. Basically, like, why did

(50:51):
they even have to go to this extreme? It shows
how people feel about our new president and what we
might have the extent that we might have to go
to and is dangerous, right.

Speaker 3 (50:58):
Well, I think different countries are to have different relationships, right,
and so at certain points you want we want a
president who will play hardball for the United States when necessary. Okay,
we just that's what we want. We don't want some
sort of limp spined US president that gets rolled over,
because the person that's getting rolled over is the president.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
It's us.

Speaker 3 (51:17):
So if somebody else is trying to stiff us, right,
trying to roll over us, you gotta double dish say,
if you're gonna hit me, I'm gonn hit you back
ten times harder. Metaphorically speaking, I think that's okay for
the president to take that mentality. And by the way,
under Biden, part of the reason why is you have
to way more illegals that were of the kind that
they actually wanted to get out of their country. That
we're actually finding their way into ours, and so each
situation is going to be different. But if you ask me,

(51:39):
do we want a president if I had to make
the choice, and I do think that.

Speaker 1 (51:44):
Often it is a trade off.

Speaker 3 (51:46):
Often it is a trade off between somebody who is
going to be well liked or well feared.

Speaker 1 (51:52):
On the global stage.

Speaker 3 (51:54):
I would rather have a president who is well feared
on the global stage than one who is well liked.
Where it's possible to do both, that's the best. But
when you have to make a choice, I want my president.
I dont care what party he is. I want my
president to be one who is feared rather than loved
by adversaries or even allies who are looking after their
own interests.

Speaker 1 (52:14):
And that's why elected. I think respect follows somebody who
stands for his own interests. Actually, in the short.

Speaker 3 (52:22):
Run, somebody who loves what you do may not actually
respect you, right, And I think Donald Trump's this way
with respect to other leaders. He respects other leaders who
looks after their country's interests, even though he's going to
play hardball with them along the way. I'm the same
way is think about the people in a business negotiation
who roll over versus people who actually will hold the
line when necessary for their interest. I respect that, even

(52:42):
if that makes for a tougher negotiation. So I think
we will automatically be more respected by the world if
we stand for our own interests.

Speaker 1 (52:49):
And then here's also one area where the US is
different than other countries. It's a little bit.

Speaker 3 (52:54):
You know, people in other countries may take issue with it,
but probably not because it's true. What hope to do
the rest of the free world have if the United
States the shining city on hill still doesn't shine. And
I've talked to leaders from other countries over the last year.
The way they've framed it to me is the US
has a choice to make. I mean, you guys, decide
which one you're going to be. Are you actually going
to remain the leader of the world and proud of

(53:15):
who you are? And if you're not, just let us know,
because I think that we will organize our own views differently.
And I do think that the United States of America
in particular has an obligation not just to itself but
to history to remain the strongest version of itself. Because
if the United States just goes back to being just
like any other ordinary country around the world. In some sense,

(53:37):
it's a loss of hope, not just for every American
but for the free world as we know it. And
I think that too is secretly these other countries were
in the short term, they might want to exploit the US.
But if they come back and say, earn know the
US is back, They're strong, They're a leader, and I
might not get my little trade agreement exactly what I
wanted out of it, but I know that that's somebody
who I can really depend on to be consistent and

(53:58):
looking after their own interests and for standing for what
freedom means. I actually think that will win us more
respect in the long run.

Speaker 5 (54:05):
I got a few more questions, Chucky, you always so
generous with your time. What did Trump say when you
told him you wanted to leave.

Speaker 1 (54:10):
Those It was it was a pretty good mutual discussion.

Speaker 3 (54:12):
He was very supportive, and uh, you know, I think
Donald Trump and I we built a good relationship since
I left the race.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
I think it's for me.

Speaker 3 (54:18):
I've always been somebody who I need to stand for
my own vision for the country. I met my best
when I'm standing for my vision for the future. And
I'm excited for that, and Donald Trump was super supportive
of that. We had a good time at the inauguration together,
and I think we're gonna be working together informally for
a long time to come.

Speaker 5 (54:36):
One of the executive orders that happened, uh you know,
was was DoLS was rebranded as the US Digital Yeah Service,
which was an Obama air group, which is basically created
to keep the manage the Affordable Care Acts website.

Speaker 1 (54:48):
Right, That's where it started, okay, but.

Speaker 5 (54:50):
Now it determines best practices for the government's use of technology.

Speaker 4 (54:54):
That wasn't your initial vision.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
So look, there were there were a couple of different
visions in approach, and I will say that Elon and
taking a technology first approach, he's the best person to
take that technology first approach, no doubt about it. You know.

Speaker 3 (55:08):
My what I've always been drawn to in my books
and a lot of the articles I've written. In my
own campaign for president, a lot of my focus has
been on using the constitutional landscape and using the legislative
landscape to bring down spending to curb regulations. I think
the best way to do that is from the perch
of elected office. And I think that when you think
about who's going to drive change through technology in the government.

(55:30):
Nobody better than Elon to do that.

Speaker 5 (55:31):
But it seems like the Trump administration, at least some
of them, like Steve Mann and the Susie Wilds of the.

Speaker 4 (55:36):
World, they don't. They're not fond of him. It seems.

Speaker 1 (55:38):
Look Steve, Steve Mann is I'm not.

Speaker 3 (55:41):
I'm not a big palace intrigue, you know, person stuff.
I'm an ideas guy. I believe in a vision for
the country.

Speaker 1 (55:47):
I want to think about how we're going to best
be able to improve the country. I don't really I don't.
I'm not super I don't.

Speaker 3 (55:52):
I don't really think the personality driven stuff is something
that's super.

Speaker 1 (55:55):
Of interested me. But I can tell what I see.

Speaker 3 (55:57):
What I see, certainly for what I was part of,
is you gotta coalition here that is unified in wanting
to restore American greatness, even with a diversity of views
underneath that coalition, right, because you can't have both a
big tent coalition while also having everybody having united views
on every small question. And so I think that was
part of what was cool this last year. I mean,
I ran for you as president with slightly different views

(56:19):
on certain things.

Speaker 1 (56:20):
And Donald Trump.

Speaker 3 (56:21):
I endorsed him when I left the race. You got
the likes of Independence, you got you know, Bobby Kennedy,
you got Tolsi. You got a bunch of other people,
Elon Musk, a bunch of people who each have our
own distinctive spins on what the right emphasis should be
for the future of the country, but came together in
what is a you know, I think, a big tent coalition,
which means there's always going to be some levels of

(56:42):
diversity of thought and opinion in that coalition.

Speaker 1 (56:45):
I think it's actually a good thing. I think that
makes a movement stronger.

Speaker 5 (56:48):
And so they only catered to a billionaire class, which issue,
which is why it's so interesting.

Speaker 4 (56:53):
I think got so many working class.

Speaker 1 (56:54):
People to you know, God, Yeah, I don't think. I don't.
I don't think that's true. I don't think it's a
sin to be a billionaire the country. No, I think so.

Speaker 3 (57:01):
I think that's part of the coalition. I think it
was very different if you look at the stage at inauguration.
By the way, I'm a big fan of indoor inaugurations.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
It was a great it was war. It was good
to you.

Speaker 3 (57:11):
I don't know if you watched it, you know, But
if you look at the people who are I was,
I was on stage with the diversity of people who
are on that.

Speaker 4 (57:17):
Stage, guys, all the billionaire.

Speaker 1 (57:20):
And imagine that four years ago, many of those same
platforms had censored and silenced the account of that same president.
I think that's progress. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Speaker 3 (57:28):
I think there may be some people across the country
who say, well, that's a bad thing and we need
to we need to go religate country.

Speaker 1 (57:34):
That's what some people say. But I think Donald trumps
around the country. I think that's the hard truth of
the matter.

Speaker 3 (57:38):
And I think that there are things, there are views
that everybody in this coalition who supported him may have
that may be slightly different what Donald Trump actually does.
Because he's done a good job of building and melding
together a pretty diverse coalition of independence, libertarian minded folks.
You have some folks who were certainly got the American
working class, union folks, you got minorities, You have people

(58:01):
who have lived the American dream themselves. You have people
who have not yet lived the American dream but aspire
for their children to. It's a pretty big tent and
so obviously, if you're going to bring together that type
of coalition, not everyone is going to agree on one
hundred percent of policies. I'd prefer that to one where
everybody did uniformly agree on everything. But it was a
much more insular, you know, segment of the American population.

Speaker 1 (58:24):
So I think this is a good thing.

Speaker 5 (58:26):
The more questions, how you how is the Trump administration
where reduced food prices when they're.

Speaker 4 (58:32):
Deporting the people who are picking the food.

Speaker 6 (58:34):
Because he's that first day out and we ain't seen
no prices drop yet.

Speaker 3 (58:37):
Well, come on, it's been a couple of weeks, right,
it's been not even a couple weeks, it's been a week.
People who are actually picking the food, well, I mean
deporting the people. Well, we maybe we should have a system,
and I think you would agree with me on this.
Maybe we should have a system where the people who's
picking our food or people who are in our food
supply chain were not people who entered the country illegally,
but actually fostered both American born and a proper legal

(58:58):
immigration system to staff that in a way that isn't illegal.

Speaker 1 (59:00):
That's a separate question.

Speaker 5 (59:01):
You want to deport people and there's only fourteen million
people live in the country illegally rid of.

Speaker 1 (59:06):
Let's let's just talk about bringing down food prices for
a second, because I think it's an important point.

Speaker 3 (59:12):
I would also add to the list, by the way,
housing prices. I would add to the list energy prices,
especially electricity costs. I would add insurance costs. How things
going to be tough, Well, here's the number one way
to do it. Increase the supply of everything. It's the
laws of supply and demand. If you have constricted supply,
you have higher prices. If you have more supply, prices

(59:33):
come down. And one of the easiest things that we're
able to do in all of those areas housing, food, energy,
you bring down the regulatory barrier to producing.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
More of it.

Speaker 3 (59:47):
That is automatically going to bring prices down. That's at
least the first and easiest step we can take. Some
of this is at the federal level, but keep in mind,
not all of this is stuff that Donald Trump can do.
Some of this is a lot of this is actually
at the state level too. I mean, you think about
most of the regulations that stop people from producing food,
most of the regulations that stop people from building new houses,
including manufactured homes, which I think is actually an innovative

(01:00:10):
area for the future. You think about even a lot
of the restrictions on energy production, it's nuclear energy included.

Speaker 1 (01:00:18):
A lot of that is at the state level, which
is part.

Speaker 3 (01:00:21):
Of why, in my own reflection right, thinking about having
an impact on the country, you want if you're doing
this public service thing, you'll tell you there's a lot
about it that isn't super pleasant at all times. So
if you're going to do it, you might as well
have the biggest possible impact.

Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
You can have.

Speaker 3 (01:00:36):
And the way I look at it is Donald Trump,
He's got it covered at the federal level. I'm rooting
for success, and I expect success, but it's not gonna
be a one man show.

Speaker 1 (01:00:43):
At the end of the day.

Speaker 3 (01:00:44):
He got fifty states that have also have to tackle
these very same problems, and especially when it's questions of affordability,
questions really into education.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
Education is all driven by the states. I think the
States is where it's.

Speaker 3 (01:00:55):
At in terms of actually the need to drive real change.
And so at my sites accordingly, and yeah, I've tried
to and I'm going to hopefully stay true to not
just talking about this stuff but to actually translate it
to action. And I do think that this is a
lot of the issues. We're talking about bringing down housing costs,
that is not a part.

Speaker 1 (01:01:14):
Of an issue.

Speaker 3 (01:01:14):
There are a lot of Republicans who are pissed off
about high housing costs, a lot of Democrats who are
pissed off about high housing costs.

Speaker 1 (01:01:20):
And it is not a nature made problem. It's not
a law physics. It is a man made problem. And
a man made problem has a man made solution. And
Donald Trump can set the tone. But those regulations, most
of them are actually at the state level.

Speaker 3 (01:01:33):
Same thing with respect education, determining whether or not that
poor young kid in the inner city, black, Hispanic, or
white can go to an actual good school isn't determined
by the federal government. It's determined by actually those state laws.
Same thing with respect to food restrictions, the constraints on
nuclear energy production, a lot of those are at the
state level.

Speaker 1 (01:01:52):
And so I'm.

Speaker 3 (01:01:53):
Actually excited about making sure that we're not just looking
at this as a one size fits all solution.

Speaker 1 (01:01:59):
I supported Donald Trump pretty heavily.

Speaker 3 (01:02:01):
I dedicated a significant part of my last year to
getting him elected because I thought he would restore that
sense of spine, that sense of greatness to America. But
it's never one man show. It's never one man coming
down from the White House to save us. It's never
been that way. In fact, our founders envisioned this system
of federalism to be led by the state's bottom up

(01:02:21):
as well, and so I'm excited for both of those
to work in the next couple of years.

Speaker 5 (01:02:25):
Do you think you will push out of those because
Trump rolled back the DEI initiatives?

Speaker 3 (01:02:29):
No, the contrary, And you know, I would say, just
to be super clear about I have no problem with
you framing or whatever. It was really just an actual
mutual decision where you look at here was one vision
on approach, here's a different vision on an approach that's great.
There's no right or wrong answer with a technology driven
approach and a technology first approach, there's no better person

(01:02:50):
than Elon to run with that. With a constitutional law focus,
with a legislation focus. Some of the areas I was
focused on, probably the right place to do it is
elected office. And so we all agreed on that, and
I think that that's actually a good thing where we're
able to where we're actually able to collaborate, divide and
conqueror behave.

Speaker 4 (01:03:06):
Yeah, I don't believe you.

Speaker 5 (01:03:08):
I think you either got pushed out you know that
it's going to implode. I think that you know Elon
is going crash and burn it. And you're a smart guy,
and you said, you know what, let me get out of.

Speaker 4 (01:03:17):
Dodge and go do my governor Ohio thing.

Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
So look, I know.

Speaker 3 (01:03:23):
I knew that the right step for me in the
long run is elected office and to pursue the vision
that we're talking about here, to actually translate that to
action of my own terms, that's what I've been called
to do. It was clear that I could not do
that and serve on Doge at the same time, even
for logistical reasons.

Speaker 1 (01:03:39):
It came to be in the government rather than an
outside body.

Speaker 3 (01:03:42):
I was proud to be able to spend the first
couple of months offering my contributions and setting it in
the right direction with its focus now with its digital
technology focus. No better person to do that than Elon
in the way that he's going to lead it. And
I am hopeful that there's going to be a lot
of stream lining of government bureaucracy that comes out of that,

(01:04:02):
and I'm pursuing my next steps.

Speaker 1 (01:04:04):
At the state.

Speaker 3 (01:04:07):
We're on, we're all on very good terms, and so
I wouldn't want to speak for anybody else, but I
will say that they are very supportive of of the
decision that I made to pursue is my next step.

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
All Right, you've been here a long time and.

Speaker 5 (01:04:21):
You hit me up every weekend and said, I cannot
wait until you unhit your horse from this Maga wagon.

Speaker 1 (01:04:26):
And you can tell me I got my horse hitch
to one wagon. And I'm not being corny about it.
I really mean it. It is the America Wagon.

Speaker 3 (01:04:35):
I love this country and I will you know what,
I would rather fight to this country for the principles
I believe in and stand for and lose than to
win by checking some box along the way. And this
next step for me, I think is going to be
it's going to be really good.

Speaker 4 (01:04:51):
You don't want your horse hits to the Maga wagon.

Speaker 3 (01:04:53):
My horse is hitched to the America wagon. And I think,
and I think making America great again, by the way,
I'm all in for that. I'm all in for making
America great again. If we're doing our jobs four years
from now, we won't be saying make America great again,
We'll just say make America greater. That's who we've always been.
So I want to turn Maga into mag Okay, so

(01:05:13):
we don't have to make America great again.

Speaker 1 (01:05:15):
We just have to make America greater.

Speaker 3 (01:05:17):
And I think it's good to have the humility to
say make America great again. Acknowledges we're not perfect right now,
and some people just.

Speaker 4 (01:05:24):
Great because they've never experienced the greatnesstead.

Speaker 3 (01:05:26):
Of let's make America greater than it's ever been. That's
what I'm all in for.

Speaker 6 (01:05:30):
You're going to be able to really do that as governor,
you're gonna have that is that just for you to
be there and be quiet until you figure.

Speaker 1 (01:05:34):
Out, well, I'm not gonna be quiet. I'm not very
good at that, and uh, you better believe that.

Speaker 3 (01:05:39):
I'm gonna have a lot to say at every step
of this way. I don't believe in being shackled, and
I think that the ability to lead a state but
also to be able to revive this culture of victory
over victimhood in America, that's what I care about. We're victors,
not victims.

Speaker 1 (01:05:55):
That's who we are. And I don't care where that
comes from I've been from my first book Woking all
the way through everything I've done ever since.

Speaker 3 (01:06:02):
I'm against victimhood culture where victors were exceptional. We believe
in excellence, we believe in we believe in being unconstrained
as a people and as a country. Well, if I'm
going to be a leader in that country, I'm going
to be pretty unconstrained at every step of the way too.

Speaker 1 (01:06:15):
So that's why I look at it.

Speaker 4 (01:06:16):
Big Grumaswami.

Speaker 2 (01:06:17):
Good luck in Ohio, and uh, how are you going
to take care of our Haitian family over there that
you know?

Speaker 3 (01:06:22):
Trump said, Well, I visited a number of them, Uh,
in Springfield, and I think that I spent a lot
of time in Springfield growing up.

Speaker 1 (01:06:28):
Actually any of them, we didn't. Oh yeah, no we
did not. We hung out.

Speaker 4 (01:06:33):
We hung out.

Speaker 3 (01:06:34):
It was it was the daytime where we hung out.
But I would say that I will say that it's
understandable where you have a tiny community, that it's really
small population in Springfield that has had its population dramatically transformed.
I don't blame anybody. That's what I said when I
went visited Springfield. I don't blame anybody in that community.
I don't blame the people who live in Springfield for
being upset. I don't blame Haitians who made decisions for

(01:06:54):
their own family to end up in Springfield the way
they are. I do blame a lot of Field government policies.
And at the end of the day, you could sit
back and blame the government all you want, and some
of At a certain point in time, I said, Okay,
I'm sitting here offering commentary from an armchair.

Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
I'm done with that.

Speaker 3 (01:07:08):
I want to go in and actually be through action,
make a difference that you want to see. The best
way to do it is from elected office, and I
prefer an executive office that involves actually being an executive
rather than just being one among a chorus of one hundred.

Speaker 4 (01:07:23):
I'm just ready to see you.

Speaker 5 (01:07:25):
But I think you're a smart dude, and I listened
to a lot of your interviews and I watch you
a lot, and I'm like, yo, you know, the VIC
says some things that I can get with, but I'm just.

Speaker 1 (01:07:34):
Yeah, you might, I'm not.

Speaker 3 (01:07:38):
I'm not going to be constrained by anybody. And you
know what I eve my you can watch me over
the next year. You know, wining some election. Most politicians
their goal is to get re elected. I don't need
to get elected anything. We live a great life, We
live the American dream. This is my way of giving back.
What's the point of going through the motions if you're
just going to be hamstrung by what you say and

(01:07:58):
do in the first place? And so I think that,
let me put it this way, running to be the
chief executive of a state, a governor, short of being
a president, is the single greatest way to have unshackled
impact on your country. And I'll look forward to making
a big announcement about that in a few weeks.

Speaker 2 (01:08:17):
All right, it's Vivick Ramaswami. We appreciate you for joining us.

Speaker 1 (01:08:20):
Continue man, It's the Breakfast Club. Good morning, Wake that
ass up in the morning.

Speaker 4 (01:08:24):
The Breakfast Club.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Breakfast Club News

Follow Us On

Hosts And Creators

Charlamagne Tha God

DJ Envy

Jess Hilarious

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}INTERVIEW: Vivek Ramaswamy Talks DOGE, Elon Musk, Trump, Biden Pardons, Running For Governor of Ohio + More