Blockbuster Interview - Vivek Ramaswamy & Jimmy Dore!
58:54 Share

Come see us do a live stand-up show. We'll be in Venice, California, Palmdale, California, Omaha, Des Moines, Milwaukee, Lansing, Bend, Oregon, Portland, Oregon, Seattle, Washington, Boston, Massachusetts, and we're going to Europe. Do you live in Europe? We're going to be there. Go to JimmyDore.com for a link for all those tickets. Hey, this is Jimmy. Who's this?

Jimmy! Al Pacino here. Oh, hey, legendary actor and friend of the show, Al Pacino. How are things, Al? Jimmy, I am doing fantastic. Just zip zapping around. Zip zap, full of life, full of verve. Where did all this verve come from? Jimmy, I'm down 25 pounds. Ah!

It's a fucking miracle. Oh, wow. That's great, Al. Losing weight at your age ain't easy, pal. What's your secret? Diet and exercise?

No, and fuck no. I'm still eating like shit and lying around. Well, how did you lose 25 pounds then? Three words, baby. Oh, Zempik. Oh. I said it's a fucking miracle. Oh, Zempik?

It's a new weight loss drug. I mean, that's not what it was meant for originally. It was made for diabetics or some shit. But people realized that it made you lose weight without even trying. So now everybody's getting these fucking injections. From Hollywood A-listers to bored suburban wine moms. Somebody's getting fucking rich off this shit, I'll tell you that much. It's like Viagra all over again. Boy, this...

This seems deceptively simple. There's got to be side effects. Yeah, there's a side effect. Every morning I have a side of fettuccine Alfredo with breakfast. Oh, yeah, gosh.

Are people sure this drug is safe? Of course it is. What could possibly be unsafe about losing weight for mysterious reasons? Uh...

I'll tell you how I know it's safe. Oprah's on it. Oh, geez. That tells you all you need to know. Once I heard that Oprah was on Ozempic, I said, oh, shit, give me some of that. Oprah's the bellwether for all new trends. The canary in the coal mine. If she gives a green light, drop that baby in the first gear and floor it.

I just got, you know, I got a bad feeling about this trend, Al. What? Come on. Josep begins to answer the humanity's oldest prayers. I want to lose weight but not do nothing. Nothing. And it's here. It's a blessing from God. I think it's more like a blessing from Big Pharma, right?

And you feel fine. I mean, generally.

Well, other than the blood in my stool, yeah. Jesus Christ. Wait, Al. That can't be good. Also, my stool is white now. No, no. Looks like a candy cane. Oh, geez. Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas from Skinny Al. I'm sorry. This sounds like a bad science fiction film. I'm afraid I know how this movie's going to end, too.

Starring Air Pacino. Did you ever think about losing weight in a more organic fashion? Like maybe pay attention to the food you eat? How much? And what's actually in the food? What, you mean like eat natural? Yeah, exactly. Nah, that sounds like homework. Oh, jeez. Fuck that.

And to be honest with you, I wasn't even trying to lose weight. Hadn't even really crossed my mind. But then I heard about this miracle drunk, oh, oh, oh, Serapik, and thought, what the hell, let's give it a whirl. And I did. And whoa, no turning back for Alfonso. I hope you're at least using this under the care of a doctor. Nope. I got my 27-year-old girlfriend ejecting me.

Is she really qualified to do that, Al? Yeah. She gives herself and her friends boat dock shots all the time. Oh, my God. These little parties. And she injects me and my boys with Ozempic. She's my little jabby jabber. Jabberwocky. Wocka, wocka. Well, Al, I guess I just wish you the best of luck with all this. You're doing all right otherwise?

Well, I don't know what you mean.

Oh no. Oh no. Oh no.

Oh, nothing, Al. We got to get going, buddy. Take care. Will do, Jimmy D. Come over sometime. We'll get you all juiced up and skinny like me. Sincerely, Al Pacino Zempik.

It's the Jimmy Dore Show.

I want to get right to it. So we were very excited to see you at the GOP debate and you were speaking some rare truth that people don't. So I just want to play a little bit of it and we'll get into it. The great replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic Party's platform.

So that's used. Let me say one more time that the great replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic Party's platform. OK, so now when you said that the great replacement theory, how would you define what that is?

Yeah, I would define it. What I was certainly talking about is a theory that basically says that if you displace certain native white populations in the United States with immigrant populations, that that's a path to lasting electoral majorities and electoral victories for the Democrat Party. And that's exactly been a statement of the Democratic Party's intentions for about the last at least 10 plus years. Going back to, you know, I've got this philosophy, Jimmy, is you just when you want somebody's beliefs, right?

A good rule to start with is just take them at their word that when they say that that's their belief, actually believe them. That's what Joe Biden was saying 10 years ago with Mayorkas by his side from Stacey Abrams to left-wing publications.

They've been saying this for years, that over the long run, this would be a path to lasting democratic victories. And so I think we should debate it on the merits. Is that desirable or not for the United States of America? But instead of having that debate, what they've managed to do now is to say, as they've often done, oh, no, no, if you're stating what I'm already advocating for, somehow you're a fringe conspiracy theorist. I reject that. I don't think that's good for our politics. We should be able to have an open disagreement on a policy debate.

honestly acknowledging that there is a policy agenda at work and you can decide whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, but at least get the facts on the table of what's actually happening so we can debate it. Okay. So I hopefully I'll be able to interrupt you more to make you feel more like you're on CNN going forward. But I say one thing about CNN since you brought him up about this topic on the great replacement theory. Jimmy, before we move on for a minute. Sure.

Yeah. So after that debate stage, actually in the spin room, I went and did an interview with CNN. And I mean, I hit several third rails that CNN lost their mind on, but this was one of them. And so the woman, Dana Bash, spends like five minutes, maybe 10 minutes grilling me on how this is just a conspiracy. But then I explained to her a lot of facts from like your exact quotes from Democratic strategists.

And then she just paused and she says, "Well, I'm not gonna use the word," like as in great replacement theory. But let's just say for a second, let's suppose what you're saying is true, what's so wrong with that? Which I thought was a brilliant moment because that's exactly the debate we should have been having the whole time, but that doesn't happen anymore. And part of my job in this is I think sometimes many conservatives

are a little sloppy when they talk about these concepts. I think we need to speak about these with precision. But once we do, I think we can have honest debate in this country that we're not having. So I remember them saying, when I used to vote Democratic, I remember them saying, especially about Texas, that demographics is destiny, which I think is just another way of saying replacement theory. Well, Van Jones really took exception to when you said that, and I want to play that right now. Smug, condescending way that he just spews this poison out.

It is very, very dangerous because he won't stop Trump, but he's going to outlive Trump by about 50 years. And you're watching the rise of an American demagogue that is a very, very despicable person. And I literally, I was shaking listening to him talk because a lot of people don't know that is one step away from Nazi propaganda coming out of his mouth.

Wow, so you literally made Van Jones shake. You caused a Jones quake. I don't know if you know that. It's nice. But I think it's nice of him to say you're going to live along, though. I bet he can tell you work out. Richter's scale of eight. You know, that's the kind of shake we got into Van Jones. You know, the funny thing, I hadn't paid attention to this guy until a bunch of people sent me that clip and I saw it on social media. And so who's this Van Jones character? I discovered something funny, actually, which is interesting to bring this full circle to.

One of the things that I said on that debate stage, which was this supposed conspiracy theory, it's just a statement of fact actually based on declassified documents, was that the US government was not straightforward with the American people about what really happened on 9/11, that there was Saudi Arabian involvement because a Saudi intelligence agent absolutely received two of the hijackers. It's a side point, not a core point of this presidential campaign.

But the funny thing is to bring this full circle, Van Jones has called me a conspiracy theorist. He actually got booted from the Obama White House for actually questioning some of the official narratives on 9-11. So it's funny how these things change. I remember that. I forgot about that. So I do. It's interesting. It's fascinating as heck. And so I was just like, who's this Van Jones guy? He seemed to sound like a clown and a joke to me. But I always

give people, I've always had a sense of curiosity about people. He's not a clown, he's not that funny, but he is a paid shill. And here's what he... Van Jones on CNN afterwards saying, this is the rise of an American demagogue who's going to live 50 years longer than Trump. This is dangerous. I am shaking. That's what he says. Just shut the f*** up. At a certain point.

Just shut the f*** up. Okay, language, but I want to just show you this because Van Jones actually did say exactly the thing that you're claiming the left was saying. And here, let me play it for you. That's basically the request from the racial justice left is that we want the white majority to go from being a majority to being a minority and like it. That's a tough request, right?

And the reality is that change is hard. Change that you want is hard. Change that is good is hard.

Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle smug. Be careful with that or you're going to get yourself in some trouble. So he calls himself the racial justice left. I thought the whole problem with the justice system was how overly racial it was in the first place. But here we are. So what? So there he is saying the exact thing that you said. And he's calling you a Nazi for basically quoting him. How do you respond to that?

I responded to that by saying the hypocrisy is rank, but it's familiar. I mean, you saw this in the critical race theory debates around schools as well, right? Because they would say conservatives want to ban critical race theory. And then they would say, oh, that's not critical race theory. We're treating the kindergartners. It's something else. Well, OK, fine. This is where conservatives, I think, got to be a little more precise. And that's why I see my role in this is actually hitting the nail a little bit more on the head.

But they're good at trolling conservatives by effectively saying the very thing that is true. It's a conspiracy theory when your opponents say it, a conservative says it, but it's just a policy statement when you say it.

And so I think that the left has always been verbally, at least at verbal jujitsu, maybe tried, thought of themselves smugly as being a half step ahead. I don't want to get away with that. And so I think I believe in having the debates on the merits, use their own words, take them at their own word. And then let's actually talk about whether this is right or wrong policy. I think it's wrong policy.

But either way, we should be able to air that dialogue instead of actually avoiding the debate by labeling it racist or xenophobic or homophobic or transphobic or dangerous or climate denier or making Van Jones shake.

that's not a basis for eliminating an argument. And you know, that's the way I roll. You're sounding very white supremacy, but, um, I'm sure I look like it to you too. You're the worst. The white supremacist calling the kettle Brown. Have you been called that yet? You haven't been called up a couple of times. I, uh, I asked him if they actually turned on their camera feature when they were talking to me. Uh,

Okay. I want to switch shift gears and talk about COVID. And here you are recently, you came out in support of the Canadian truckers, right? The freedom convoy truckers, truckers, aren't just haulers of goods. They're guardians of our way of life and guardians of freedom of our highways.

Last year, the Canadian Freedom Convoy taught the world a valuable lesson about the power of civil protest against an out-of-control totalitarian government. On Thursday, December 21st, join me in Walcott at Iowa 80, the world's largest truck shop, where I will lay out my detailed plan for how we support our truckers and our supply chain while ensuring freedom for all.

So just go ahead and tell me, were you always on board for the truckers? Did it take you a while to wake up to what was happening? No, I didn't just come out with that. Actually, I was on Bill Maher's show right as it was playing out. Actually, I don't know, it was about a year ago or whenever it was, a little over a year. And I said the same thing back then, that this is the great reset on one side versus the great uprising on the other. And a big part of this is not just a U.S. issue. It's a transnational issue. You've seen equivalent movements in Western Europe,

And here in the United States. And so, yeah, I said that to Bill Maher at the time. And to my pleasant surprise, he actually was more receptive to that argument than I expected. But I think one of the things that happened in that situation that bothers me that's relevant to policy today is that they actually used the back door, not the front door, but the back door of locking their access to their bank accounts. Excuse me. I hate this so much I'm allergic to it. They used...

I would say a financial backdoor use of force to suppress that Freedom Convoy across Canada. And these are cross-border truckers, so there's a relevance to the United States too. That's one of the reasons, one of many reasons why I'm against a central bank digital currency in the United States. I've been one of the leading opponents in the United States and probably in the West against the rise of this so-called ESG movement, which is really an alternative social credit scoring system.

that uses weaponization of financial markets to get people to do what the government couldn't get them to do directly through policymaking. And that's a bit of what we saw with the Freedom Convoy. So, you know, tip of the hat, bravo to you on that. Here, I want to ask you about this, because you say...

The variants are more likely to emerge with greater transmission. It's correct, but she's also wrongly assumes that slowing the spread in the United States, which enjoys widespread vaccination, will reduce the development of new variants. But

But new variants aren't emerging in the United States. They're emerging in places with a higher percentage of unvaccinated individuals. Those variants are the ones that have the greatest potential to drift and possibly shift away from the strain the initial vaccines were designed to protect against. Those strains won't disappear with masking and social distancing policies, but the efficacy of vaccines will. So,

What was your stance exactly on that? Because the first time I read that- Yeah. You just got to read it pretty carefully. It sounds to me like you're kind of blaming the unvaccinated for the variants. No, no, no. Okay. Actually, just read it carefully to understand. It's a very technical piece and a lot of people get- Okay. We live in a Twitterified world. People don't have... I don't know how much you know about my background. I studied molecular biology in undergrad.

I developed a number of medicines that are FDA approved. And so wearing a very different hat to get into technical detail, here's the point I was making. New variants are not necessarily a bad thing. The title of that article was Slow It Down? No, Let It Spread or Let It Rip. That was the title.

and so the whole premise was you want to know the best way out of the coveted pandemic actually let it spread you get serially milder and milder strains that would have taken care of the pandemic i was really criticized when i wrote that i mean a lot of people on the left called me calling like a death cultist or calling for death in the united states actually what did you end up seeing later on that's exactly what got us over the pandemic and so

In the early stages of the pandemic, I will say that I was less skeptical of the vaccine than I am now. And a lot of the facts have come out now, especially on the safety side of things. I did get the first two shots. I regret it. As a young, healthy man, I had no reason to. My only reason to is I couldn't fly around. And if you had to get on an airplane or otherwise, you had to show double vaccination. And so I did it as a matter of convenience. I wouldn't do it again. And we've kept our kids the heck away from it. But when you think about the actual right policy

The whole idea of new variants, they were serially milder and milder. If we had just let it rip sooner, we would have gotten it through sooner too. Other countries actually had that experience and were actually a lot smarter about it than the United States. We would have gotten through the pandemic a lot sooner if we didn't have the lockdowns.

And actually, if we didn't have the vaccine policies combined with the lockdown, which in many ways was the worst of all worlds. And so that was the point. If you just look at the title of the article, it's exactly what it's OK. OK, don't slow it down. Spread is what it said. That's you got it right. I had Dr. Robert Malone here on my show in the summer of 2021. He explained that to us. And so we were about at least a year and a half or two years ahead of everybody else. And

in the media on that. So it's good to see that you were on that too. So congratulations on that. That exactly is how it should have went. It didn't go. Are you for prosecuting Fauci because he lied to Congress about funding the gain of function by research? He did it twice. I saw him twice. Not only did he lie about that, but he lied about masks. He lied about herd immunity, lied about natural immunity, lied about the efficacy of the

the transmission, contraction, all that stuff. He lied about everything. Are you for prosecuting him? Because I am. Yeah, so I am, but narrowly on this, because I'm against weaponizing the justice system or anything else. A lot of the things you name, you could say that they're just things he didn't know, right? He didn't know about what the transmission rate was or whatever. But on funding, the origin of the pandemic-

on actually using US taxpayer money to fund it through the back door, what was banned here in the United States. That's a violation of law. So based on the public facts we have, it looks like that's exactly what happened.

I'm always a fan of letting the justice system proceed. And if there are other facts to the contrary that come out at a trial or otherwise, I'm always open to having my mind changed. But right now, that looks pretty damning. And I do think we need accountability. So would I support an investigation to get to the bottom of it? Absolutely, I would. And would I let the court system do what it's supposed to do without prejudging the outcome? Of course. I'm always a person who believes in

and letting the court system run its course. But is an investigation warranted here? Should we absolutely take a look at this just like you would for any other criminal breaking the law based on the facts that we see? It does look like he broke the law to use taxpayer money to fund gain-of-function research, which is banned in the United States.

But to intentionally do it through the back door in a way that led to a global pandemic, we have to get to the bottom of that. And without accountability, you can expect far worse in the future. So I also favor holding China accountable for certain of the decisions they made in, I believe, quasi-purposely allowing the global spread of something that was already spreading in China. I think it's clear that they made certain decisions that they need to be held accountable for.

But I can't just hold China accountable if we're not holding the bad actors here accountable as well. So that's what I favor. So what is your position on Julian Assange? Pardon, day one.

Okay, moving on. I've said that. I have a long list of day one pardons. He's on it. And the reason why is, among other reasons, Chelsea Manning, the government employee who leaked to Julian Assange, had her sentence commuted, effectively got pardoned by President Obama. Why? Because she's transgender. I have doubts of whether she's transgender or not. She might just be smart, knowing that's exactly what you had to claim to be in order to be a politically favored member to get clemency from the Obama administration.

But regardless, Julian Assange, the guy who just published it, sitting in foreign exile in some prison, that's wrong. He's on my, and it's a, no, not small list of day one pardons, but he's on my list of people who will get pardoned and he will be a free man in the United States of America on January 20th, 2025.

So let's move on to Israel. Here's what you tweeted about it. I'll give you a chance to clarify anything you want. You say now is the moment for Israel to return to its founding premise. The Jewish state has an absolute right to exist, a divine gift gifted to a divine nation charged with a divine purpose. Israel has an absolute and unequivocal right and responsibility to defend itself to the fullest extent.

applying the only language its adversaries understand, the language of force. And what would David Ben-Gurion say? Don't depend on anyone else's fleeting sympathies or permission to do it. If Israel wants to destroy Hamas, Israel should go ahead and destroy Hamas. If Israel wants to destroy Hezbollah, Israel should go ahead and destroy Hezbollah. Good luck.

If Israel and Mossad want to pull off Munich 2.0 and take out every last leader of Hamas, wherever they may be hiding from Doha to Dresden and host a red wedding at the Four Seasons in Qatar the next time Hania and Michelle are show up, they should go ahead and do it. So it sounds great, except for the part of Hezbollah. But anyway.

So we don't have to wonder what Ben-Gurion would say. We could just read his quotes. Let me just read a couple to you. We must expel Arabs and take their places. And if we have to use force not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places, then we have force at our disposal. Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. Politically, we are the aggressors.

And they defend themselves. The country is theirs because they inhabit it. Whereas we want to come here and settle down. And in their view, we want to take away from them their country. Behind the terrorism is a movement which, though primitive, is not devoid of idealism and self-sacrifice. So doesn't that kind of blow your argument out of the water? I just quoted that guy and he's saying that we're taking their land.

Here's my view on it. And I wanted to let you finish that so I could tell you what my view is. And you can look at the totality of what I've said here. I have a radical revelation. I'm running for president of the United States, not for the president of Israel or any other country.

And I know some people running for U.S. president mix that up a little bit. I don't. I'm pretty clear about which country I'm running to be president of. And my view is against that backdrop, Israel is an ally. Israel should be allowed to do what Israel needs to to defend itself and also to make its own determinations. But this is all against the backdrop of me being probably the only person in the GOP field that's actually been clear about this. We should not be getting involved in that.

I am against the $16 billion or $14 billion aid package for this specific war. I think that's better for Israel and better for the United States. So my view is this, I think that Israel's founding premise is it has the right to exist, David Ben-Gurion would have said, without the sympathies of the West and without the micromanagement of the West. Great, I agree with that.

I think that Israel does have the right to exist. I would stand diplomatically for Israel's right to defend itself, but I don't think the US should be militarily intervening in this war.

And against that backdrop, yes, I have a lot to say diplomatically in favor of what Israel decides to do. And there's a whole debate within Israel's own government. Keep in mind that not everybody in Israel's own government agrees with what they should be doing. If only the American press actually laid, I would say, the same type of critical inquiry of Bibi's own leadership in Israel that the Israeli press is. There's a lot of debate for Israel to have, but that's Israel's decision to make.

not ours. And so I think we muddy the waters when we're, A, engaging militarily or financially in this specific war, or B, trying to play armchair quarterback from any direction. So my view is, when I was asked about my opinion on what I believe of Israel, I love Israel as a country. I believe in Israel's right to exist. I believe Israel is an ally of the US, and our job is to stand diplomatically for its right to self-defense.

But I'm against, and I think I'm alone, maybe Thomas Massey in the Congress or whatever, but in the GOP amongst presidential candidates, I'm alone in saying we should not interfere in this specific conflict, diplomatically give them the air cover they need to get their job done, let Israel make the decisions it needs to make.

that's better for the United States, better for Israel, doesn't muddy the waters, and that's where I'm at. So hopefully at least that's clear to you about my position. Well, that's certainly a little better of a position than most of the people running for president, including Joe Biden. Or RFK or anyone else. I mean, I think, frankly, or much of the Republican Party, frankly. Or Van Jones. Or Van Jones. Yeah.

Yeah. But I'm shaking. I'm shaking that you said that. And let me and let me just clarify what I said earlier when I was reading your statement. I said that sounds great. I was being sarcastic because I want to show you when you say the right to self-defense. Danny Hyfong tweeted this out today. He says that Israel is destroying entire neighborhoods in Gaza instantly. So let's just watch this.

So this is boom. So that doesn't look like self-defense to me. That looks like genocide was what is what they're actually trying to do. And I just want. So do you think that's what that is? Do you think that that is? I confess I'm looking at a camera, not at what you just put up. But I'm familiar with the kinds of images you're probably putting up. OK, so they they what it looks like they blew up an entire neighborhood at once.

And so you've seen what they've been doing and you see the game that they're playing. They told everybody to get out of the north of Gaza and go to the south. And then they started bombing them in the south. They're bombing hospitals. They're bombing schools, UN refugee camps. They're bombing everything. And they're slaughtering. So self-defense does not mean that you get to relentlessly slaughter the enemy of your children in perpetuity because that's what they're doing. So what would you say to that?

I come back to a simple principle. Yeah, I mean, I'm being lighthearted about a serious topic, but I'm doing it in the interest of clarity. I'm running for president of the United States, not the president of Israel or another Middle Eastern country. And I think part of what's happened in Ukraine and a lot of other places too is

is we create this ambiguity that creates a moral hazard, which the US by being ambiguous, but being sort of half in half out and sort of intervening, sort of providing backing, distort the decisions that other countries make. And so my view is we should be clear

Israel is not the same as Ukraine. We diplomatically stand with Israel in a strong way, in a foundational way as a basic ally of the United States in the Middle East. But we should not be intervening in this war. It's not our job to play global policeman.

And I think that when I say that, that applies in multiple different senses. I don't think we should be further engaging in this war in Ukraine. I think that creates moral hazard for Ukraine to do the kinds of things that Ukraine otherwise wouldn't have done. Remember, Zelensky wanted to negotiate a deal in the first six months of this war before the West intervened and goaded him to fight even more.

So my view is we're at our worst when we're engaging willy-nilly, waddling into some conflict that's like you're sloppily waddling into some glass shop, breaking glass, leave, and leave places like Iraq to Afghanistan arguably worse off than they were when we showed up.

My view is this, diplomatically stand for our allies to be able to defend themselves. Israel has the ability to do it. There are decisions for Israel to make. There are risks and there are consequences of certain decisions they may make vis-a-vis their adversaries in the Middle East. Let Israel make its own decisions instead of playing armchair quarterback or backseat quarterback or whatever the, you know, whatever the idiom is, you know, backseat quarterbacking, armchair advising what somebody else should do. I

My job is to take care of this country. And so I would tell Bibi, you smoke the terrorists on your southern border if they're threatening you, great. We have our own problem at our own southern border. I'm going to deal with that here. We diplomatically stand for your right to do it without the UN or anybody else or the EU or the US for that matter, psychoanalyzing and backseat quarterbacking what you're supposed to do. That's what I would say. So you said it several times that you

diplomatically stand with Israel's right to defend themselves. Do you think what they're doing is called defending themselves? So look, I think that then you get into, I mean, complicated. Not that complicated. Right now, they're responding to an attack, right? So you can't just take a snapshot of what they're doing when actually what you see is a hostile attack by Hamas. I think what Hamas did to Israel was medieval.

It was immoral. It was wrong. It was ghastly. It not only deserves to be condemned, it deserves to be responded to. And I think Israel has a right and responsibility to respond to that. So I think that it's not some even false moral equivalence somebody's supposed to draw if you're just looking at this, not in the sense of what should the U.S. do, but just from the sense of

What is the right thing or what is the sense of justice here? I don't think that oh you count up the number of civilians that Hamas killed and you count the number of deaths on the other side and say somehow that's a moral tabulation that's even it's not one side innocently went in to kill innocent civilians the other side has a right to achieve deterrence for the future and make sure that doesn't happen again, but Israel needs to make that decision on its own terms. I don't think that the US should be intervening in this situation, which it's interesting.

The direction that I sense you're pushing me out or applying pressure is very different from what I've been experiencing for most of this race from within the Republican Party, which has been in the other direction that I'm not signing some blank check to Israel, which is most of the criticism that I've taken. So it's interesting and I think that it's edifying to sort of get a slightly different, being pushed from a slightly different direction. But I'm consistent no matter who I'm talking to here.

Yes, we diplomatically stand for Israel's right to do what it needs to, but it's not our job to play policeman and second guess their decisions, just like it's not our job to play policeman in other parts of the world either. Well, when you say that they have a right to respond to the attack on October 7th, you're starting the story in the third act, just like the people who support the Ukraine war start the story in the third act with Putin's invasion of the Donbass when he invaded not to start a war, but to end one. And so you know how to tell that story, but you don't want to tell this story. Well, this story is long.

complicated. I don't think it's the job of the United States to be, I don't think it's our job. I just have a very different, I have a really simple view on the role of US leadership. And I think it's the one that George Washington shared. We're talking about David Ben-Gurion in Israel. Why don't we talk about George Washington in this country? He's our founding father, our first president. Well, what would he say? What did he say in his 1796 farewell address? We don't want foreign entanglements that don't advance our own interest. So there's two guiding principles for me.

One is the people who we elect to run our own government should be the ones who actually run our own government, not an unelected bureaucracy, which runs the show today. And the second principle is that the people who we elect to run that government

owe a moral duty to the citizens of this nation, not any other one, but of this nation. And so I'm far more concerned and in-depth focused on economic mobility and the border crisis in the United States and the rise of violent crime in this country and taking care of our own citizens who are $34 trillion in debt while we're handing out foreign aid willy-nilly to other countries whose national debt per person is less than ours

I don't think it is my job to be some sort of moral arbiter trying to play God adjudicating thousands of years of history in some other part of the world that I don't think that we should be militarily engaged in in the first place. And yes, I do think that everyone has a role to play, but I'm not running for president of the world. I'm running for president of the United States. And I think that that moral clarity matters.

As a father, my moral duty is to my two sons and to my family. And as much as I do care for people who live in some other neighborhood at 300 miles away, if I could do some good there on a charitable basis, I would. My moral duty is to my family.

Well, as a president of the United States, my moral duty is to the citizens of this country, not any other one. And so I've been pretty consistent on that. And I am a student of history, and I could have a detailed intellectual discussion with you going back in different parts of the world from what's going on in Armenia and Azerbaijan that no one's talking about to Israel, to Ukraine, and that's fine.

But the hat I'm wearing right now is a guy who's looking to lead this country. I don't think it's our job to intervene in conflicts unless it directly relates to the U.S. interest. I can agree with you on that, but you have to do have some have moral leadership on what's happening when an ally of us that we do support financially is committing a genocide right out in the open. And you will be appointing. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. You will be appointing the U.N. ambassador. And the ambassador has been consistently voting against any kind of

UN action to stop what's happening there. So you will have a role to play. And so you can't just wash your hands of this. You will have a role in this. Well, my role is, and I want to be clear about this because I'm not ducking your question either.

either. I don't think the UN should be stopping Israel from doing what it's doing. And I first of all, I don't think the US should be even subsidizing the UN. Let's just let's just get to that. Okay, I don't think the UN really has a continued reason for existence, or at least the US to continue funding it. That's where I'm at on that question. As it relates to the genocide point, though, I just want to pause there for a second. I appreciate the respectful way we're having much better than my dialogue with CNN or anyone else. And so we've agreed on most things, we might have slightly different point of view here.

I disagree on the genocide point. What does genocide refer to? The elimination of a race. Well, you know what? About 20% of the Israeli population is Palestinian. That's more than the black or Hispanic population of the United States. And you know, probably arguably the best place on planet earth where Palestinians live the highest quality of life with actual civic respect is in Israel. So I do take issue with the issue of somehow just

flatly using the word genocide, which refers to the elimination of a race. When the people of that race live the best possible life in the country that you're calling the perpetrator of that genocide and 20% of that population, more than minority populations even in this country of Israel's population are Palestinians.

who are living with rights within that country. I think that there is a lot of responsibility to go around for other Arab countries, for failed leadership, both of the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas all the way to Hamas's failed leadership in Gaza. And so I think that that's something that, yes, involves a long history that is not the role that I'm running for of Middle Eastern history professor at Harvard. I'm running to be president of the United States, which is why I have my moral clarity that I'm focused on this country without intervening there.

Let me get one more question in from my co-host, Kurt, because, boy, I tell you, the way you could spin that into somehow Israel's protecting Palestinians and they have the best. I would not want to. I would be in a corner. I would not want to buy a car from you because you would nail me. Let me go to Kurt. Kurt, you have you have a question. Yeah. By the way, I think the Vakes done the best of anybody you've had on the show as far as in these. I know. Yeah.

Okay, genocide, you know, they say about the Uyghurs in China who are treated better than Palestinians for the record. It's more of an ethnic cleansing, I would call it. Everybody's throwing genocide around, but what it is is an ethnic cleansing. All these videos that you see of the destruction, I know you can't see this particular one.

Without looking at any of those, the actual ambassadors from Israel, just going off of that, the things they're saying are very scary and crazy. And I'm watching like Wolf Blitzer of CNN. We covered that story where the guys is, you know, they're all way. We got to do Dresden. They're calling on Dresden like that was not a horrific crime against civilians on purpose. It was terrorism explicitly. They're going, we have to do that. So it's a little like to go, hey, they have to do whatever they feel they have to do.

You know, you point about their distorted choices because the money we're giving them is a good point. Because without us supporting them, I don't think they could do this level of destruction. They can't.

But that what they're doing, any other country like China, I'm sure you wouldn't hold back telling China, hey, you're out of line for what you're doing with the Uyghurs or Taiwan. Like this is a, and I don't know how you're gonna be able to- - I'll tell you about that one too. I'll tell you about that one too. I mean, my issue there is hypocrisy, right? Of US companies that will happily do business in Shenzhen without saying a peep while criticizing systemic racism in the United States.

My view is it's not the job of the US companies to be offering moral commentary in either of those senses, make products and services for people who need them. That's where I've been commenting most in the last several years, to the extent I've been talking about the weaker human rights atrocity in China. It's not that it's our job to be the world's moral policeman. I think it's our job to look after US interests, but I've been critical of companies

BlackRock to Nike to anyone else, to JPMorgan Chase, that will relentlessly self-flog ourselves for human rights violations in the United States about the slaughtering of black Americans without saying a peep about the actual atrocities where they're also doing business at the same time in China. And the reason that's relevant for the U.S. is

They actually sent one of China's top diplomats, Yang Jiechi, to the Alaska summit to face Tony Blinken. And their conversation was stunning. In the opening statement, China's foreign minister or one of their diplomats is going off about

How China wants to see the U.S. do better on human rights. China wants to see the U.S. stop slaughtering black Americans. And Tony Blinken is just sitting there with a blank face, just taking it on behalf of the United States. When there's actually a million Uyghurs in concentration camps subject to forced sterilization, communist indoctrination and worse.

And just in terms of sheer numbers, what's the largest scale arguable violation of human rights since the Third Reich of Germany? That's just the sheer numbers of it. That hypocrisy is what I point to. A million people in concentration camps. - God, there's two million people in a concentration camp. - Well, I mean, the concentration camp, nobody's committing forced sterilization, right? And so all I would say is-- - Calories for how much they can survive barely to eat. Real weird German stuff. - All I would say for you guys is, and I think you're sensing this too,

There's a fight you may rightly want to pick. I'm not the person that you're picking it with because I'm a non-interventionist when it comes to conflicts that don't directly relate to the US interest. I'm not just a gratuitous interventionist. And so I know I'm running for Republican candidate for US president. And so I don't blame you because that's where most of the insane Republican Party actually is.

in intervening in foreign conflicts that don't have to do with our interest. I just want you to know, I'm not that guy, but at the same time, I think that actually I want to see the discussion between you guys and pick Nikki Haley or Chris Christie or any of the other jokers who have been- They wouldn't come here. They won't come on this show. ... warmongers and otherwise in

situations that don't advance their interests. That's the actual debate. But I want to be careful not to put myself just because I'm running for Republican Party president. I don't represent those views. And I want to make sure you guys understand that distinction. Okay. Well, I appreciate you coming on. I hope you come back and we have a million more things to talk to you about, and especially we could push back on your weaker comments, but we don't have time. We're out of time. Thank you for coming on and best of luck.

This is fun. I appreciate it. And, you know, I talk about that in my first book, Woke Inc., a little bit. I mean, we only scratch the surface, but if we do talk next time, we can even get a head start. So you guys at least understand what my views are, so then we can debate where we disagree. Okay. Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member. We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week.

And it's a great way to help support the show. You can do it by going to JimmyDoreComedy.com, clicking on Join Premium. It's the most affordable premium program in the business. And it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards. Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member. And if you haven't, you're missing out. We give you lots of bonus content. Thanks for your support.

So this is the head of the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis, and this guy ran for governor of California. His name is, why am I blanking now? Kashkari? I think that's how you pronounce his name. I thought he was Keeler Peel from Keeler Peel Show. So he's got something to say. This is, so he's got something to say about the new central bank currency. How do you call it, CBDCs? When is that coming out? I've been waiting forever. So...

So listen to what he says about it. A bank digital currency. Do you think that that's something that you all should be looking into seriously? To what degree should you be looking into it seriously? Central bank digital currency. Central bank digital currency. Think about that. Okay, so they could turn off your...

Your money at the flip of a switch. Is that something you've been thinking about? Yeah. You think we're going to have that big? Yeah. I mean, as my colleagues at the Federal Reserve have talked about, we are examining it. I'll tell you my personal bias is I'm pretty skeptical. I keep asking anybody, anybody at the Fed or outside of the Fed to explain to me what problem this is solving.

I can send anybody in this room $5 with Venmo right now. No, seriously. So what is it that a CBDC could do that Venmo can't do? And all I get is a bunch of hand-waving. Well, maybe it's better for financial inclusion. Maybe it's better for cross-border remittances. Maybe. Is there any evidence that it is? And they say, well, what about China? China is doing it. Well, I can see why China would do it. If they want to monitor every one of your transactions, you could do that with a central bank digital currency. You can't do that with Venmo.

If you want to impose negative interest rates, you could do that with a central bank digital currency. You can't do that with Venmo. And if you want to directly tax customer accounts, you could do that with a central bank digital currency. You can't do that with Venmo. So I get why China would be interested. Why would the American people be for that? Whoa. Who's that guy? What? Kind of shocking, right? It's actually a great point because I was like, yeah, we do have digital. I've never had cash on me to do anything. That's right. We already have it. Why centralize it? Why centralize it?

That's a great point. China has it. That's great. That's great. We're going to fully be China. That guy ran for governor of California. He could have been governor of California. Well, if you have more hair, that's the world we're living in. That's the world we're living in. Another great bald man, not appreciated. I get it. I don't remember any of his platforms or what his policies were, but I like that. I like what he just said. Yeah, he said a thing I hadn't thought of, but I feel like I should have. Yeah. Yeah.

So this is now here's Dr. Vandana Shiva. She's going to talk about central bank digital currencies. It happened, she says, in her country. Listen to this. Did you know this already? I didn't know this. And if you notice, you know, my country was the first where they made cash illegal. 2016, digitalization was forced on the country. Eight o'clock in the evening announced midnight cash was illegal, the big notes. And 70% of the economy crashed. I do remember that.

This digitalization is now going all over the world and there's a war on cash. They call it war on cash because cash is merely a medium of exchange. It has no value in itself. It's just a promise. You read the dollar note, it says, I promise to pay the bearer. A, when it's digital, even a credit card, you know you're giving rents to the global financial system. But when it's cryptocurrency in the hands of algorithms, in the hands of big tech, they will do what is happening in China.

Create social credit system to decide a new cost system. And you might have also followed that while all this has been happening, the founder of the World Economic Forum did a book called The Great Reset on how to deal with the COVID crisis. And everything we're seeing unfold is part of that Great Reset. But an element of that Great Reset is you will own nothing.

Now, I'm a believer in the commons. And it would be so good if all land was a commons, if all seed was a commons, if food was a commons, if health was a commons, so that we had strong public health systems, strong community health system, deep knowledge about being healthy. But when Paul Schwab says you will own nothing, he's saying we'll own it all. That's why you have Gates, not just owning the seed. Wanting to own our food. One, of course, controls the health.

And now owning land. If ever there was a time for humanity to wake up, now is the time. So she just made the point. That's why you have Bill Gates owning the seeds, owning the farmland. He's the biggest private farmer. I think he's the biggest owner of private... Bezos, number two. Another astronaut, former... Well, former and astronaut. Bezos.

So this is real, and this is the time for people to need this. I mean, look what they did to the truckers in Canada. They turned off their money. Yeah, right. And that's how they can control you. Now you can't do anything. You can't even put gas in your car.

Yeah, well, all these that's why it's it's so hilarious to me to watch anybody Republican or right wing go on about China when all these companies you're going to have to deal with and make sure they're doing OK to do to be able to do your job. Really admire all these things about China are our big enemy that we're going to have to have a war with eventually.

i guess once we have our own digital currency then we can really get hey they could send the money directly to ukraine without even going through it that's right any hassle once we have that

So let me play. I really want to play this one more time. The bank digital currency. Do you think that... The bank digital currency. But she does talk funny like that. I'm sorry. She talks like that. Vogel Frey, yeah. In Colombia. Looking for a West Coast. Digital currency. The bank digital currency. Do you think that... Digital bank. Bank digital currency. I hate it.

Bank digital currency. Do you think that that is something that you should be looking into seriously? To what degree should you be looking into it seriously? Just what are your thoughts on CBDC? I mean, as my colleagues at the Federal Reserve have talked about, we are examining it. I'll tell you my personal bias is I'm pretty skeptical. I keep asking anybody, anybody at the Fed or outside of the Fed to explain to me what problem this is solving.

I can send anybody in this room $5 with Venmo right now. No, seriously. So what is it that a CBDC could do that Venmo can't do? And all I get is a bunch of hand-waving. Well, maybe it's better for financial inclusion. Maybe it's better for cross-border remittances. Maybe. Is there any evidence that it is? And they say, well, what about China? China is doing it. Well, I can see why China would do it. If they want to monitor every one of your transactions, you could do that with a central bank digital currency. You can't do that with Venmo.

If you want to impose negative interest rates, you could do that with the central bank digital currency. You can't do that with Venmo. And if you want to directly tax customer accounts, you could do that with the central bank digital currency. You can't do that with Venmo. So I get why China would be interested. Why would the American people be for that? We're not.

Who cares what we want? Yeah, that's right. Who cares what you want? You'll owe nothing and you'll be happy. I've never been happier. Fuck you, poverty. Here I come. Hey, this is Jimmy. Who's this? This is Hillary's supporter. Oh, hello, Hillary's supporter. It's good to hear from you. You haven't called the show in quite a while.

Yes, I was in a mental institution.

It's true. I'm so sorry to hear that, buddy. Don't be. It was amazing. People just take care of you and then they either leave you alone or talk to you about your problems and your problems only. Literally nothing is expected of you. It's a paradise. That's why I had myself committed in the first place. You committed yourself? For what? Yeah.

Because I should not be expected to handle various mild anxieties and neuroses on my own. The idea that one has to, quote, handle one's problems is a Western construct and it's a result of colonialism and capitalism.

But unfortunately, the doctors at my insurance company eventually decided there was, quote, nothing wrong with me and forced me to leave after a year of fucking fascist colonizers. That's too bad.

It is too bad, Jimmy Dore, especially considering that I myself diagnosed numerous disorders for them, including but not limited to ECHI, eye contacts, hyperavoidance, PBESD, post-verbal exchange stress disorder, WCIT, weather change-induced trauma.

CODPPA, cat or dog proximity panic disorder, mild vertigo, and most acutely, SFDA, subject fixation detachment anxiety. Subject fixation detachment anxiety. What is anxiety? What is that? Yes, that means when you have little or no new information regarding the subject you have fixated on. In my case, Hillary. Oh, I see.

But I'm happy to say I'm doing much better. Do you know why? Do you know why? Does it have to do with Hillary Clinton? You are not allowed to say her name out loud. That is violence. But yes, it's because Hillary is coming back. She's coming back. Is that so?

Ah, no. Ha ha!

Hillary supporter, Hillary supporter, don't you think... If you contradict me or disagree with me, I'm calling the police. I'm warning you. But that's not breaking the law, though.

Well, it feels like it is. So that means it is. OK, I'll choose my words carefully since the Biden campaign really needs the support of the left to win. Do you think it's wise to have such a pro-war political figure stumped for Biden? I mean, when the vast majority of the left is against the war in Gaza?

No one is against the war in Gaza except anti-Semites and only Republicans are anti-Semites. See, I figured it out and solved it. You're welcome. I'm a leftist and I don't support the war in Gaza.

Well, then you're a horrible garbage person then. So you are emotionally fragile. You are so emotionally fragile that you can barely leave your house, but you have no problem with this slaughter of innocents in Gaza? Excuse me.

Excuse me. Excuse me. What? I forgot. Oh, yeah. When I see the video of these people being bombed and dying and getting horribly injured, I look at them and I just know that these people do not respect pronouns. They misgender, I'm sure of it. So, yes, kill them. Wow.

Look, idiot. If Hillary supports it, then Hillary's supporter supports it, too. That's the long and short of it. I may be afraid of my own silverware, but at least I know a brave leader to fight me on. A leader who is railroaded by men like you, Jimmy Dore. I'm happy to be a serviceman.

Okay, you know what? You are currently triggering my OBR, Omnidirectional Blame Response, but I know how to handle it now because I'm in therapy for it. And by therapy, I mean there is a bird that sits out my window sometimes that I talk to. The point is, Hillary is back and is supporting Joe Biden. And when he wins again, Hillary will be the one running things behind the scenes, and then you'll all be sorry. Actually, I agree with you there. We're going to all be sorry.

Okay, this has gone far enough. How dare you willfully do a misdirection on me or whatever you call it. You call them jokes, but most people rightly call them micro-fascism. I don't need this right now. Someone knocked on my door two days ago and I've been having panic attacks every 20 minutes since. The next one is coming up, so I have to go, but just know this. People like me are stronger than you, Jimmy Dore, and we will beat you in the end.

Okay. So long, Hillary supporter. Goodbye. Wait, that wasn't strong enough. Goodbye. Actually, bad bye. That should be what we say to people like you. I'm never calling again unless you request me to. And I'm calling the cops on you anyway just to be safe right after this panic attack. Hillary supporter, ladies and gentlemen. Yes.

Hey, become a premium member. Go to JimmyDoreComedy.com. Sign up. It's the most affordable premium program in the business. All the voices performed today are by the one and only, the inimitable Mike McRae. He can be found at MikeMcRae.com. That's it for this week. You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.

Do not freak out.