#445 – Vivek Ramaswamy: Trump, Conservatism, Nationalism, Immigration, and War
02:51:22 Share

The following is conversation would expect harmas swarm about the future of conservatism in america. He has written many books on this topic, including his latest called truths, the future of amErica first. He ran for president this year in the republican primary and is considerable many to represent the future of the republican party.

Before all that, he was a successful biotech entrepreneur and investor with a degree biology from harvard and a law degree from yale. As always, when the topic is politics, I will continue talking to people on both the left and the right for empathy, curiosity and backbone. And now a quick few second mentioned sponsor checking out in the description is the best way to support this podcast.

We got silly for international roaming data, Better help for mental health next week for business management software, ground news for cutting through the media bias and eight sleep for nps. She's wise, my friends. Also, if you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason, there is a million reasons.

They're all nice to categorized, good, extremely contest contact. And now onto the flat rates, as always know, as in the middle, I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too.

This episode is brought you by silly, a brand new eaon service APP offering several affordable data plans in over one hundred fifty countries, everything at a conversation with Peter levels, level I O, whose traveled across the world and been exceptional, productive, traveling across the world. So this may come off as being a total travel nub, but two things that game to me is troublesome, more difficult as a travel club when i'm traveling to all kinds of locations. And i'm trying to be productive.

One is a power. So power cables, the all the adapters you have to keep in mind and making sure your equipment is is able to plugged in to the outlet without trying anything. In fact, they had a funny experience with that, or not so funny about five equipment when i'm doing a podcast abroad anyway.

So power and figuring that out is actually not trivial. And related to that is figuring out which electronics stores to go to to get equipment and how to find those stores. And to find no stores, you need to have good internet.

And let's take me to the second issue and into when traveling is just getting good internet in any country, in any location. So that's what the sai hopes up with. They have a great data plan, easy to use, minimized roaming fees were costly being connected.

And so when you're traveling, you're not desperately to holding on to that sweet, sweet airport wifi before you are take a leap auton into the unknown when there's no wifi here. thanks. Sadly, you can stay connected flash lex and choose the one gig about daily data plan together for free.

That's silly, that house ash lugs to get one free gig of silly. alright. This episode is also brought to you by Better help spell H E L P help you seen the movie wonderful all over the cookies, the good movie.

I really should read the book. I haven't read a book. I really want to read a book. But I think there's something also magical about the performance in the movie, just pure genius.

Anyway, the performances in the movie reveal the various manifestations of inanity, including the insanity of the people running the institutions. There's all kinds of insanity that humans are capable of. Why do I see this? I believe a talking is one of the ways to reverse engineer how the insanity came to be in the first place.

I would have loved to be inside, on floor the cookies s nest, and talk to those characters and talk to those human beings. In fact, I gravitate towards people with that kind of complexity in their mind. You know, when I traveled the across the country, and in general, when I travel, I gravitate words, people like the homeless people outside of seven eleven, and have a genuine, non judgmental, just open hard conversation with them.

I like talking to regular people. I like talking to people who I don't know do something real for. I don't need to judge sort of White colour and tech jobs, but I just mean manual labor jobs.

These people were their eyes, their hands, their feet. The whole way of being shows aware and tear shows a journey out of well lived and hard lived. I like those people, and I really want to talk to those people on the post.

But more than anything, forget the mikes. I just like talking to them. This was a one human to another. Anyway, I say all that conversation is a really powerful thing. And um if you want to take conversation service way to heal your particular mental mill, consider using Better hope, check out a Better hope that countach legs and save on your first month that's Better helped our conscious h legs. This epsom is also brought ty by next week and all in one cloud business, manageress system.

I just recently did an episode on the history marxism, and what really struck means that the nineteen century was A A battleground of radical ideas, and I think is popular in a modern political discourse to label, Frankly, moderate ideas as radical sort of innocenti c radicalized ric and uh, push towards the moderate are actual policies and ideas. And is interesting to look back at the sixth century, the industrialized world, that doesn't have enough data, and what a large scale implementation ation of ideas would actually look like. It's interesting to see those ideas battle each other out in the most radical form.

So that really opened up my eyes to serve, honestly, embody and consider in, walk a mile in the shoes of a particular idea, whether that's communism or capitalism, because capitalism does have flaws. But IT is the thing that has given us much of the improved quality of life that we see around us today, I think is a fascinating, complex question of why there's a large collection of humans, when free to compete, do a pretty good job is facing. And that's every time I I talk about next week that I am talking about how does a large collection of humans, different departments, different tasks, how do they all collaborate efficiently, effectively under the deadlines, under the stress, under the shadow of the reality that if the business does not sell a lot of stuff and make a lot money, it's going to fail and all those people will lose their jobs.

It's stressful and is beautiful anyway, over thirty seven thousand companies have upgraded to net sweet by oracle. Take advantage of net sweet flexible financing. Planet nets weedon slash legs that's not sweet or comes large legs.

This episode is brought you by ground news, a non part of the news aggregator that I used to compare media coverage from across the political spectrum. The point is to see every side of every story, and you, you, the listener, come to your own conclusion. This is one of the problems ahead with people that are against platforming certain voices. I believe in the intelligence of the listener to decide for the truth. And sometimes that doesn't come immediately, sometimes that comes over time.

But I do think that IT is the responsibility of a host of an interviewer to chAllenge the audience, to push the audience, did not just listen to this particular person, but to listen to other people that disagree with this person, to listen to different voices and different perspectives, and consider both the possibility that this person is completely right or completely wrong, and walk about with those two possibilities together. So don't get captured by particular ideology. Give yourself time to accept the ideology and to accept the steel man against the ideology, an existing in the superposition of truths. Try to figure out where in a great area is a your own understanding of the path forward because unlike what politicians claim, I don't think there's a right or an easy or a clear answer for the problems that we face as a human civilization.

In fact, the division, I think that we're seeing online on the internet between the politicians is our best attempt at trying to throw the tension of discourse, figuring out what the hell lowey doing here, how do we solve this? How do we make about a world so oney way? Ground news is a great job of delivering the metrics that give you the context of, like, okay, how bias is this particular story so they can kind of help you in consuming that new story to understand words coming from is trying to clearly, in an organized way, deliver to you the perspective on the truth, grounded in the context of the bias from which the perspective consume.

okay? And there are a lot of all the features that are super interesting. I'm glad they exist on, glad they're doing. The work they're doing is extremely important.

Go to ground news that council ash legs to get forty percent off the ground news vantage plan, giving you access to all of their features. That's ground G R O U N D news com slash legs. This explode is also brought you by asleep, and its part for ultra cools hits up each side of the bed separately.

Speaking of the amazing things that captain brought to our world, they increasingly make names more, more magical. The a ultra, part of the part for ultra adds the colonial base that goes between the matters and the bed frame. I can elevate, control the positioning of the bed, which is another fascinating piece of technology.

And so you can sort of read and bad, you can watch T, V, all that kind of stuff. But I think the the killer feature, most amazing feature is the cooling the bed, a cold bed with a warm blanket. One of my favourite things in the world for nap, for full asleep, all that I don't know. I'm doing something wrong, I don't care. I'm a scientist of end of one of myself.

When IT comes to health, when comes the nutrition, when comes I integrated advice from all my friends, all of the scientific literary podcast and all that can stuff from debt at the end of the day, I take all that with a grain assault and just kind of listen to my body and see what works for me. Nps are magical. I think they're essential for my productivity.

I go hard in the first few hours a day. This is four, four hours of deep work, and after that there is a bit of a crash just because is so exhAusting and an APP sauves that like trively fifteen, twenty minutes. Sometimes I will pop up cafe pill before the nap or drink coffee before the night when I wake up on ready go again, I don't know.

I can do that without the nap. I S. I don't.

And so, so thank you. I sleep. And thank you for the magic of nap. Go to sleep down stas legs and use code legs to get three hundred and fifty dollars off the pod for ultra. This is eleven podcast to supported to please check out our sponsors in the description. And now their friends, here's the vet, almost warming.

You are one of the great illusion dator of conservative ideas. So you are the perfect person to ask, what is conservatism? What's your, let's take conservative vision for america?

Well, actually, this is one of my criticisms of the modern republican party. And direction of the conservative movement is that we've gotten so good at describing what we're against, but there's a list of things that we could rail against, the vogue trend, gender ideology, climate ideology, COVID, sm, covet policies, the radical by agenda, radical agenda, the list goes s on.

But actually, what's missing in the conservative movement right now is what we actually stand for, what is our vision for the future of the country? And I saw that is a deficit at the time I started my presidential campaign, IT was in many ways the purpose of my campaign because I do feel that that's why we didn't have the red wave in two and twenty two. So if they try to blame downal trump, they try to blame abortion, and they blame a bunch of individual specific issues or factors, I think the real reason we didn't have that red wave was that we got so practiced criticizing job ad in that we forgot to articulate who we are and what we stand for.

So what do we stand for? As conservatives, I think we stand for the ideals that we fought the american revolution for in one thousand hundred and seventy six. Ideals like merit, right? That the best person gets the job without regard to their genetics, that you get ahead in this country not in the color of your skin, but on the content of your character.

Free speech and open debate, not just to some sort of catch phrase, but the idea that any opinion, no matter how happiness you get to express IT in the united states of america, self governance, and this is a big one right now, is that the people we elect to run the government, there are no longer the ones who actually run the government. We in the conservative movement, I believe, should believe in restoring self governance. Where is not? Bureaucrats run in the show, but actually elected representatives.

And then the other, the other ideal that the nation was founded on, that I think we need to revive, and I think is a north star of the conservative movement, is restoring the rule of law in this country. You think about even the abandonment of the rule of law, the southern border. It's particularly personal to me, as the kid of legal immigrants to this country, you and I actually share a couple of aspects in common in that regard.

That also though, means your first act of entering this country can't break the law. So that does some policy commitments in principles merit free speech, self governance, rule of law, and that they, culturally, what does that mean? To be a conservative as IT means.

We believe in the anchors of our identity. In truth, the value of the individual, family, nation and god beat race, gender, sexuality and climate. If we have the courage, taxi's ten for our own vision. And it's a big part of what's been missing and it's a big part of not just through the campaign but through, you know a lot of my future because that's the evacuation i'm having to fill yeah.

we will talk about each of those issues. Immigration, the growing of government. Religion is really interesting topic, something you ve spoken about a lot um but i've also had a lot of really tense debate so a year perfect person to asked to steal and the other side yeah so let me ask you about progressivism. Can you still man the case for progressive ism and left flowing ideas?

yes. So look, I think the strongest case, particularly for left of ideas in the united states, so in the american context, is that the country has been imperfect in living up to its ideals. So even though our founding fathers preached the importance of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and freedom, they didn't practice those values in terms of many of our founding fathers being slave owners, inequalities with respect to women and other disempowered groups such that they say that that created a power structure in this country that continues to last to this day.

The vestiges of what happened, even in eighteen sixty, in the course of human history, isn't that long ago, and that we need to do everything in our power, correct, for those imbaLances in power in the united states. That's the core view of the modern left. I'm not criticizing IT right now.

I'm still mining IT. I'm trying to give you, I think, a good articulation of why the left believes they have a compelling case for the government stepping into correct for historical or present inequalities. I give you my cattle a bottle of that, but the best statement of the left, I think that is the fact that we've been been imperfect and living up to those ideals. In order to fix that, we're gonna to take steps that are see severe steps, if needed, to correct for those historical and inequalities before we actually have true equality of opportunity in this country.

That's the case for the left towing view. More in america.

So what's your criticism of that? So my concern with that is, even if that's well motivated, I think that IT recreates many of the same problems that they were setting out to solve. I'll give you a really tangible example of that in the present.

Right now. I may be alone amongst prominent conservatives who would say something like this right now, but I think it's true wrong going to say IT. I'm actually even the last year, last year and half seeing actually a rise in antiblack and anti minority racism in this country, which is a little curious.

right? win. Over the last ten years, we've got as close to my look, the king's promised land, as you could advise place where you have every american, regardless of their skin color, able to vote without obstruction.

A place where you have people able to get the highest jobs in the land without race standing in their way. Why are we seeing that resurge? In part it's because of, I believe, that left doing obsession with racial equity over the course of the last twenty years in this country.

And so when you take something away from someone based on their skin color, and that's correcting for prior or injustice, was supposed to do the left in user to correct for prior and justice by saying that whether you're White, straight, sis, man, you have certain privileges that you have to actually correct for. When you take something away from somebody based on their genetics, you actually Foster greater animals towards other groups around you. And so the problem with that philosophy is that IT creates, there are several problems with that.

But most significant problem that I think everybody can agree we want to avoid is to actually fan the flames of the very divisions that you supposedly wanted to heal. I see that in context of immigration policy as well. You think about even what's going on in up from ohio. I was born raise ohio to live there today, the controversial springfield, ohio. I personally don't blame really any of the people who are in springfield, either the native people who have worn raised in springfield or even the hatin ts who have been moved to springfield.

But IT ends up becoming a divide and conquer strategy and outcome, where if you put twenty thousand people in a community where fifty thousand people where the twenty thousand are coming in, don't know the language, are unable to follow the traffic laws, are unable to assist late, you know, there's going to be a reactionary backlash. And so even though that began perhaps with some type of some type of charitable instinct, right, some type of sympathy for people who went through the earth, the earthquake in two thousand ten and eight, in achieve temporary protective status in the united states, what began with sympathy, what began with earnest intentions, actually creates the very division and reactionary response that supposedly we say we wanted avoid. That's my number one criticism of that left turn word view.

Number two is I do believe that merit and equity are actually incompatible. Merit and group quotas are incompatible. You can have one or the other. You can have both in the reason why is no two people? And I think, is the beautiful things true betwen you and eye between U I.

And all of our friends or family, or strangers, or neighbors or colleagues, no two people have the same skill sets were each and doubled by different gifts, or each enough t with different talents. And that's the beauty. Human diversity and a true meritocracy is a system in which you're able to achieve the maximum of you're god given potential without anybody standing in your way.

But that means necessarily there's going to be differences in outcomes in a wide range of parameter is not just financial, not just money, not just fame or currency or whatever IT is. There's this could be different outcomes for different people in different fears of lives. And that's what merok acy demands, is what IT requires.

And to the left, vision of group equity necessarily comes at the cost of meritocracy. And so those are made. My two reasons for opposing the view is, one is it's not metered rates, but number two is IT often even has the effect of hurting the very people they claimed to have wanted to help. And I think that's part of what we're seeing in modern america.

Yeah, you had a pretty intense to be with mark cuban. The great conversation. I think it's on your pocket.

yes. Yeah, great. okay. Well, speaking of good, good guys misses me all the time with with beautifully eloquent to criticism.

I appreciate that mark. I was was one of the more convincing things he said to you. You're mostly focused on kind of D I.

So so let just take a step back and understand people use these acronyms and then they start saying IT out a muscle memory and stop asking what IT actually means. Like D, I refers to capital, the diversity, equity inclusion, which is a philosophy adopted by institutions, principles in the private sector, companies, nonprofits and universities to say that they need to strive for specific forms of racial, gender and sexual orientation diversity.

And it's not just the d, it's the equity in ensuring that you have equal outcomes as measured by certain group quoted targets or group representation targets that they would meet in their ranks. And the problem with the D I agendas in the name of diversity, IT, actually has been a vehicle for sacrificing true diversity of thought. So the way the argument goes this is that we have to create an environment that is receptive to minority ties and minority views.

But if certain opinions are themselves deemed to be half to those minorities, then you have to exclude those opinions in the name of the capital d diversity. But that means that you're necessarily sacrificing actual diversity of thought and give a very specific example that might sound like, okay well, is such a bad thing if an organization doesn't want to exclude people who are saying racist things on a given day. We could debate that, but let's get to the tangible world of how that actually plays out.

I, for my part, have not really heard an ordinary amErica people uterine racial epithets. If you're going to rest rather in the grocery stores, something i've been encountered certain out the work, but that's a therefore al case. Let's talk about the real world case of how this plays out.

So there was an instance IT was a case that presented itself before the equal employment and opportunity commission, the e oc, one of the government enforces of the dei agenda. And there was a case of a woman who wore red sweater on fridays in celebration of veterans and those who serve of the military and invited others in the workplace to do the same thing. And they had a kind of authority group.

You could call IT that a veteran type finance group, appreciating those who had served her son had served as well. There was a minority employee at that business who said that he found that to be a microgrid. So the employer asked her to stop wearing that clothes to the office.

Well, he still felt like he wanted to celebrate that. He was. Friday was the day of the week where they did IT. SHE still wore the red sweat. SHE didn't wear IT. But he would hang out on the back of her seat, right? Put up on the back of her seat, the office, it's an early, you can do that either.

So the ironies in the name of this capital, versy, which is creating a supposedly welcoming workplace for all kinds of americans, by focusing only on certain kinds of so called diversity, that translates into actually not even a diversity of your genetics, which is what they claim to be solving for, but also a hostility to diversity of thought. And I think that's dangerous. And you're seeing that happened in the last four years across this country.

It's been pretty rampant. I think IT leaves amErica worse off. The beauty of americans were a country where we should able to have institutions that are stronger from different points of you being expressed.

But my number one criticism of the di agenda is not even, that is antimetric rac. IT is antimatter craic. But my number one criticism, music is actually hostile to the free and open exchange of ideas by creating often legal liabilities for organizations that even permit certain viewpoints to be expressed. And I think that's the biggest concern.

I think Marcus says that diversity allows you to look for talent in places where you haven't looked before and therefore find really special a talent, special people. I think that's the case.

He said he didn't make that case. He was a great conversation. And in my response to that is great.

That's a good thing. We don't need a three letter acronym to do that, right? You don't need special programmatic D I. Incentive to do IT because companies are always going to seek in a truly free market, which I think that we're missing in the united states today for a lot of reasons.

But in a truly free market, companies will have the incentive to hire the best and brightest, or also can be less competitive verse other companies. But you don't need es gdi, csr regimes, in part enforced by the government. To do IT today, to be a government contractor, for example, you have to adopt certain racial a representation targets in your workforce.

That's not the frame market work IT. So I think you can have at both ways either. It's going to be good for companies and companies going to do its in their self interest.

That's a capitalist like my cuban and I believe. But if we really believe that, then we should let the market work rather than forcing IT to adopt these top downward ds. That's my issue with .

A I don't know what this is about human psychology, but whenever you have a administration, a committee that gets together to do a good thing, the committee starts to use the good thing, the ideology behind wife. There's a good idea to bully people, to do bad things. I don't know what IT is.

This has less do with left wing versus writing ing ideology, and more than nature of a cracky is one that looks after its own existence as its top goal. So it's part of, you've seen with the so called perpetuation of weakness in american life, is that the bureaucracy has used the appearance of virtue to actually deflect accountabilities for its own failure.

So you've seen that in several different fears of american life could even stuck out in the military, right? Think about our entry into iraq after nine eleven had nothing to do with the stated objectives that we had. And I think by all accounts, IT was IT was a policy movie.

We regret our policy ranks in our foregone policy establishment made a mistake in entering a rock, invading a country that really, by all accounts, was not at all responsible for nine, eleven, none's. If you're part of the U. S.

Military or your general mark milli, you would rather talk about White rage or systemic racism, then you would actually talk about the militaries actual substantive failures. So what I call the practice of blowing woke smoke to deflect accountability is the same thing with respect to the educational system. It's a lot easier to claim that.

And i'm not the one making this claim, but others who made this claim that math is racist because there are in equitable results on objective tests of mathematics based on different demographic attributes. You can claim using that the math S S racist. It's a lot easier to blow that woke smoke.

Then IT is to accept accountability for fAiling, teach black is in inner city how to actually do math and fix our public school systems, and in the zip code coded mechanism for trapping kids and poor communities in bad schools. So I think that in many cases of what these bureaucracies do is they use the appearance of signaling this virtue as a way of not really advancing the social cause, but it's strengthening the power of the bureaucracy itself and installation that bureaucracy from criticism. So in my way, bureaucracy, I think, cars, the channels through which much of this woke ideology has flowed over the last several years.

And that's why part of my focus has shifted away from just combatting weakens, because this is a symptom, I think, versus combatting actual bureaucracy itself. The rise of this managerial class, the rise of the deep state, we talk about that in the government, but the deep state doesn't just exist in the government. IT exists, I think, in every sphere of our lives, from companies to nonprofits to universities. It's the rise of, you call the manager's class, the committee class, the people who professionally sit on committees, I think, are wheeling far more power today than actual creators, entrepreneurs, original idea ors in in ordinary citizens alike.

Yeah, you need managers, but as few as possible IT seems like when you have a giant manager, al class a, the actual doors don't get to to do, uh, but like you said, bureaucracy is A A phenomenon of both the left and right.

This is not is not even the left or right. It's just trying sense that if it's into american at its core, so our founding fathers, they were antibiotic rated at their core. Actually, they were the pioneers, the explorer, the unafraid.

They were the inventors, the creators. People forget this about Benjamin Franklin, who signed the decoration of independence, one of the great inventions that we have in the united states as well. He invented lighting rod.

He invented the Franklin stove, which was actually one of the great innovations of the field of thermal dynamics. Heaven invented a number of musical instruments that mode certain behavin went on to. That's just Benjamin Franklin.

You can go. He is a one off everybody talk. He was the one zani founder who is also a creative, scientific nova, or who happened to be one of the founders of the country.

wrong. IT wasn't unique to him. If Thomas jeffson, what are you sitting in right now? You're sitting in a on a swivel chair.

Kate, who invented the swivel chair, tom is jeffson. He invented the switch while he was riding. The declaration of independent .

reminded me that he drafted, he wrote the decoration of independence when he was thirty three.

And he was thirty three when he did IT while inventing the swim chair.

Like you're focused on the world chair, we just pausing the decline.

Independent IT makes me feel form the decoration of independence part. Everybody knows what people don't know. He was an architect, so he worked in Virginia, but the Virginia state capital dome.

So the building that in Virginia today, where the state capital is that dome, was actually designed by Thomas jeffson as well. So these people weren't people who SAT on professions committees. They weren't bureaucrats.

They hate a bureaucracy. Part of older world england is older world england was committed to the idea of bureaucracy. The monarchy go hand, hand.

A monarchy can't actually administer governor directly, requires a bureaucracy machine to actually technocratic ally govern for him. So the united states of amErica was founded on the idea that we reject that old world. To view by the old world vision was that we, the people, cannot be trusted to self govern or make decisions for ourselves.

We would burn ourselves off the planet, is the modern version of this with existence al risks like global climate change, if we just leave IT to the people in their democratic will. That's why you need professional technocrats, educated elites, enlighten bureaucrats to be able to set the limits that actually protect people from their own worst impulses. That's the old world view in most nations in human history have Operated this way.

But what made the united states of amErica itself to know what made amErica great? We have to make amErica itself. What made amErica itself, as we said, hell, note to that vision that we, the people for Better awards, are going to self govern without the committee class restating what we do.

And the likes of jeffson and Benjamin Franklin. And I could give you examples of john atoms or Robert livingston. You go straight on the list of founding fathers who are inventors, creators, pioneers, explores, who also were the very people who came together design the declaration of independence.

And so yet, this rise of bureaucracy in america, in every sphere of life, I view IT is and american actually. And and I hope that conservators and liberals like can can get behind microsys, certainly to get there and and shut most of IT down. Yes.

speaking of shutting most of IT down, how deep propose we do that? How do we make government more efficient? How to make IT smaller? What the what are the different ideas? How to do that?

Well, the first thing I was saying, you're always taking a risk. Okay, there, there's no free lunch here. Mostly at least you're always taken a risk. One risk is that you say, I want to reform gradually.

I want to have a grand master plan and get to exactly what the right in status, and then carefully cut with a chisel, like a work of art to get there. I don't believe that approach works. I think that's an approach that conservative have taken for many years.

I think IT hasn't gotten very far. And the reason is if you have like a hit of hydro and you cut off one of the heads, IT goes right back. The other risk you could so that the rest of of not cutting enough.

The other risk could take is the risk of cutting too much is that i'm going to cut so much that i'm going to take the risk of not just cutting the fat but also cutting some muscle along way, that i'm going to take that risk. I can't give you options, see, which is to say that i'm going to cut exactly the right amount. I'm going to do IT perfectly.

okay? You don't know extend tie, you don't know beforehand. That is exactly how it's going to go. So that's a meaningless claim. It's only question of which risk you're onna take.

I believe in the moment we live in right now, the second risk is the risk we have to be willing to take. And we haven't had we haven't had a class of politician. And down the trump in twenty sixteen was, I think, the closest we've gotten.

And I think that the sector and will be even, even closer to what we need. But short of that, I don't think we've really had a class of politician who has gotten very serious about cutting so much that you're also gona cut some fat, but not only in fat, but also some that's the rise ript to take. So what would the way I would do IT?

Seventy five percent had count reduction across the board in the federal bureaucracy, send them home packing, shut down agencies that shouldn't exist. Recent, every on constitutional regulation that congress never passed. In a true self governing democracy, IT should be our elected representatives that make the laws in the rules, not an unelected bureaucrats.

And that is the single greatest form of economics stimulus we can have in this country. But there is also the single most effective way to restore self governance in our country as well. And IT is the blueprint for, I think, how we save this country .

as pretty gangster. Seven, five percent. There's this kind of almost mean like video of argentinean president a Harry Emily where on a White board he has all the, I think eighteen ministries lined up and he's like he's ripping like department education gone and he just going like this.

Now the situation argentina is pretty dire and and the situation in united states is not. Despite everybody saying all the empire falling, is is still, in my opinion, the greatest nation on earth. Still, the economist is doing very well.

still. There's this is the hub of culture, the hub of innovation, the hub of so many amazing things. Do you think is possible to do something like firing seventy five percent of people in government? One things they are going relatively well.

Yes, I felt that is necessary and essential. I think things that depends on depends on what your level of well really is. What you're benchmarking against amErica is not built on complacency.

We're built on the pursuit of and are we still the greatest nation on planet earth? I believe we are agree with you on that. But are we great as we could possibly be or even as we have been in the past, measure against our own standards of excEllence? No or not.

I think the nation is in a trajectory of decline that this in the empire yet, but we are a nation in decline right now. I don't think we have to be. But part of that decline is driven by the rise of this managerial class, the bureaucracy, sucking the life blood out of the country, but sucking the life blood out of our innovative culture, our culture of self governance.

So it's possible, yes, it's really possible. I may not say you want an easy way to do IT. This is a little bit, I mean, a little bit glib here, but I think it's not crazy, at least as a thought experiment getting there on day one, say that anybody in the federal bureaucracy who is not elected, elected representatives, obviously elected by the people, but as the people who are not elected, if your social security number is in a nod number, you're out.

If IT ends in an even number, you in, there's fifty percent cut right there of those who remain. If your social security number starts in an even number, you're in. And if IT starts to the odd number, you're out boom, that's a seventy five percent reduction then literally, sarcastically, okay.

One of the virtues of that thought experiment, not a policy prescription, but one of the virtues of that thought experiment is that you don't have a bunch of lawsuits you're dealing with about gender discrimination or racial discrimination or political viewpoint discrimination. Actually, the reality is you've at mass, you ve didn't didn't bring the chisel. You have a chainsaw.

I guarantee you do that on day one and do number to step two one. Day two, on day three, not a thing will have changed for the ordinary american, other than this higher there of government being a lot smaller and more restrained, spending a lotless money to Operate IT. And most people have run a company, especially larger companies, know this is twenty five percent of people who do eighty ninety percent of the use for work.

These government agencies are no different. So now imagine you could do that same thought experiment, but not just doing IT at random, but do is still at large scale while having some metric of screening for those who actually had both the greatest competence as well as the greatest commitment and knowledge of the constitution that I think would immediately raise not only the civic character of the united states now we feel OK the people we elect to run the government. We've got the power back to around the government again, as opposed the unelected biocon ATS.

Will the power today? IT would also stimulate the economy. I mean, the regulatory state is like a wet blanket on the american economy, most of its own constitutional. All we require is leadership with a spine to get there and actually do what conservative presidents have, maybe gesture towards and talked about, but have not really evacuated ever in modern history.

And by the way, that kind of thing would attract the ultra component actually want to work in government .

exactly what you're missing today, because right now the government would swallow them up. Most competent people feel like that biocon tic machine will swallow them whole. You clear the deck, seventy five percent of them. Real innovators can then show up.

Yeah, you know, there's kind of the cynical of view of capitals and where people think that the only reason you do anything is to earn more money. But I think a lot of people would want to work in government to build something that's helpful .

to a huge number of people. Yeah will look, I think is this opportunities for the very best to have large scale impact in all kinds of different institutions in our universities to get through twelve ve education through entrepreneurship? And obviously very biased in that regard to think there's a lot you're able to create that you couldn't create through government.

But I do think in the moment that we live in where our government is as broken as IT isn't is as responsible for the declining nature of our country. Yeah I think bringing in people who are unafraid, talented and able to have an impact could make all of the difference. And and I agree that I don't think actually most people, even most people who say they're motivated by money, I don't think they actually motivated by money.

I think most people are driven by a belief that they can do more than they're being permitted to do right now with their skill sets. I've never I say as i've I found a number of companies. And one of the things that I used to ask when I was, you know not data day involved in the many more.

But as a CEO, I would ask when I did interviews in the first company I started at roizen, like for four years in them where you know, company was pretty big by that point, I would still intend on interviewing every candidate before they joined screening for the culture of that person. I can talk a lot more about things we did to build that culture. But one of the questions I would always ask them naturally, just to start a conversation, pretty basic question is, why did you leave your last job or why are you leaving your last job?

I'll tell you, what I didn't hear very often is that I wasn't paid enough, right? Maybe they would be shy to tell you that drink an interview, but there's indirect ways to signal that, that really wasn't at all like giving a top ten reason why people were leaving their job. I'll give you with the number one reason was, is that they felt like they were unable to do the true maximum of what their potential was in their prior role, that the number one reason people leave their job.

And you know, I think by the way, that I would say is i'm saying that I know self postal way that we attract these people. I think it's also true for most of people who left the company as well, right, right? And it's and I was roving, are the companies started?

I think the number one reason people join companies, the number people leave companies, whether they've been to join money or to leave mine in the past, have been that they feel like they're able to do more than they're able to with their skill set than that environment permits them to actually achieve. And so I think that's what people hang for. We think about capitalism and true free market capitalism.

And we used words earlier like mary tok sy, it's about building a system whit it's in a nation or whether it's even within an organization that allows every individual to flourish and achieve the maximum of their potential. And sometimes IT just doesn't match for organization where IT. Let's see, the mission is here and somebody 的 skill sets could be really well aligned to different mission。 Then the right answer is it's not a negative thing.

It's just that, that person needs to leave in, find their mission somewhere else. But to bring that back to government, I think part of what's happened right now is that the rise of that bureaucracy and so many of these government agencies has actually obfuscated the mission of these agents. I think if you went to most federal bureaucracies and just to ask them like what's the mission I was making one above the time ahead right now, the department of health, human services, what is the mission of H.

H. S. In the united states of america? I D doubt somebody who works there, even the person who leads IT, could give you a coherent answer to that question.

I I just heavily doubt IT and you could fill in the blank for you over any range of. Department of commerce and could go straight down the list to be to these other ones. What is the mission of this organization? You you say for the U.

S. military. What's the purpose of the U. S.

military? The department of defense? I can give you one I think get is to win wars and more importantly, through its strength to avoid war.

That's IT. Well OK, that's the mission then, you know, okay, it's not tinkering around and messing around in some foreign conflict. We can feel like IT sometimes and other ones where we don't and who decides that, I don't really know.

But whoever the people are, they decided that we follow those orders. No, our mission is to protect the united states of america, to win wars and to avoid wars. boom.

Those three things. What was protecting united states of amErica mean? Number one, the homeland of the united states of amErica and the people who resided there. good. That's a clear mission.

I mean, the department of health and human services maybe could be a reasonable mission to say that I want to make amErica the healthiest country on planet earth, and we will develop the metrics and meet those metrics in deaths. The goal of the department of age, just to set policies, or at least to implement policies, the best achieve that goal. But you can.

And maybe that's the right state of the mission. Maybe it's not, but one of things that happens is when you're governed by the committee, class IT dilutes the sense of mission out of any organization, whether it's a company or government agency or bureaucracy. And once you've done that, then you lose the ability to attract the best in the brightest.

Because in order for somebody to achieve the maximum of that are potential of what it's towards, there has to be a mission in the first place. Then you not get in the best in bridge. You get more from the committee class. And that becomes a self perpetuating downer spiral. And that is what the blob of the federal bureaucracy really looks like today.

Yeah, you said something really profound at the individual scale of the individual contributor do or creator. What happens if you have a certain capacity to do awesome shit? And then there's barriers that come up.

We have to wait a little bit. This happens, this friction always in when humans together and work on something, there's friction. And so the the goal of a great companies is to minimize that friction, minimize the number of barriers. And what happens is the manager, al class, the incentivise is for to create barriers.

It's what he does. I mean, that is by the nature of a bureaucracy, IT creates sand in the gears to slow down whatever the other process was. Is there some room for that somewhere in certain contexture? It's a defensive mechanism that's designed to reduce dynamism. But I think when you when that becomes cancerous in its scope, IT then actually kills the host itself, whether that's a school, whether that's a company, whether that's a company. And so the way I think about IT lexis, there's sort of a baLance of distributed power and mean power in the in the full co sense of social power.

But I mean, just sort of power in sense of the ability to effect relevant change in any organization between what you could call the founder class, the creator class, the everyday citizen, the states older class, and then the manager erik class, and and there's role for all three of them, right? You can have the constituents of an organism, the saying, a constitutional republic, that the citizen, you could have the equivalent of the creator class, that people create things in that net. And then you have the bureau tic class that's designed to administer in service a liaison between the two. I'm not denied that there are some role somewhere for people who are in that manager, erik class.

But right now, in this moment in american history, and I think it's been more less true for the last century, but it's grown, starting with withdrawal, son's advent of the modern administration of state, meta tii zing through fbr new deal and what was required administrate blown over in metastases further through lb, js, great society and and everything that happened and since, even aided and devided by republican presidents along the way, like Richard nixon, has created a united states of amErica where that committee class, both in and outside the government, in our culture, wheels far too much influence and power relative to the everyday citizens, stakeholder and to the creators who are in many way is constrained, hamstring, shackled in straight jacket, from achieving the maximum of their own potential contributions. And I certainly that myself, you know, I probe identified being a member of that creator class, most goals, lessons, this one i've done to create things. And I think we live in an environment in the united states, america, where we're still probably the best country on her, where that creator has that shots. That's the positive side of IT, but one where we are far more constructive to the creator class. Then we have been when we've been at our best, and that's around to see change.

Can you saw a steel man the perspective of somebody that looks at a particular department, department of education as and are saying that the amount of pain that will be caused by closing and firing seventy five percent people will be too much?

yeah. So I go back to this question of mission. right? Lot people who make arguments for the department of education aren't aware why the department of education was created in the first place.

Actually, that might be a useful place to start, is that this thing was created IT had a purpose, presumably what was that purpose might be at least a relevant question to ask before we decided, what are we doing with that or not? What was the purpose of this thing that we created? It's not a, to me, seems so like a highly relevant question yet in this discussion about government reform.

It's interesting how eager people had to skip over that question. And just to talk about, okay, but we ve got the status quote and it's just going to be disruptive. Where is asking the question of OK? This institution is created IT had an original purpose.

Is that purpose still relevant? Is this organization at all fulfilling that purpose today? To me, those are some relevant questions test. So let's talk about that for the department of education.

Its purpose was relevant at that time, which is to make sure that locality ties, and particularly states, were not sighing dollars, taxpayer dollars, away from predominated black school districts to predominantly White ones. And that was not a theoretical concern at the time I was happening, or there was at the some evidence. And that was happening in certain states in the salad.

And so you may say you don't like the federal solution. You may say you like the federal solution. But like IT or not, that was the original purpose of the U. S.

Department of education to make sure that from a federal perspective that states were not systematically disadvantaging black school districts of paramenters White ones, however noble and relevant, that purpose may have been six decades ago. It's not a relevant purpose today. There is no evidence today of states intentionally mapping out which are the black versus White school districts and sifting money in one direction verse another.

To the contrary, one of the things we've learned is that the school districts in the inner city, many which are pronominal black, actually spend more money per student than other school districts. For a worst result, as measured by test scores and other performance on a per student basis, suggested that there are other factors than the dollar per school determining student success and actually suggesting that even the over funding of some of those already poorly run schools rewards them for their actual democratic failures. So against that, back to of the department of education has instead extrapolated that original purpose of what was a racial equality purpose, to instead implement a different vision of racial equity through the ideologies that they demand in the content, the curriculum that these public schools actually teach.

So department education funding the federal fining accounts for about, give you round numbers here, but around ten percent of the funding of most public schools across the country. But that comes with strings attached. So in today's department of education, this didn't happen back in one thousand nine hundred seventy, but is happening today.

Ironically, it's funny how these things changed with the bureaucracies that fail. They blow up smoke to cover up for their own failures. What happens with today's department of education? They effectively say you don't get that funding unless you adopt certain goals deemed achieving racial or gender equity goals.

And in fact, they also innovating the curriculum where there's evidence of schools in the midwest are in the great planes that have been denied funding because department education funding, so long as they have certain subjects like artery. There was one instance of a school that had archery. And its great look, I I found that to be pretty resting.

actually. I think that I think different kinds of physical education, this is one that combines mental focus with physical aptitude today, maybe on bias doesn't matter whether you like artery or not. I don't think it's the federal government's job to withhold funding from a school because they include something in their curriculum with the federal government deems inappropriate or that locality found that to be irrelevant los of education.

So what you see that is an abandonment of the original purpose. As long past you don't have this problem that the department education was originally formed to solve of slightly ending money from black called district to Whites called districts, and launching that effectively in public funds that doesn't existence anymore, so they find new purposes, instead creating a lot more damage along the way. He asked me to still men, and can I see something constructive rather than just pounding down on the other side?

One way to think about this is for a lot of these agencies were many of them formed with a positive intention at the outset. Yes, where that positive intention existed. I'm still a skeptic of creating bureaucracy, but if you're going to create one, at least make IT what we call IT, a task force making a task force.

A task force was agency means after it's done, celebrate, you have done your work, pat yourself on the back and then move on, rather than creating a standing bureaucracy which actually finds things to do after IT has already solved. Address sed. The first reason IT was born in the first place.

And I think we don't have enough for that in our culture. I mean, if you have a company that generate a tons of cash flow and IT solved the problem, this is a, this is a from the company that developed a cure to some disease. And the only thing people knew at that company was how to developed a cure to that disease.

And they generate or a bottle of cash from doing IT as somebody you could just give to your shareholder and clothes shop. And that's actually a beautiful thing to do. You don't see that happen enough in american. Conscious ness in the american culture of when an institution has achieved its purpose, celebrate IT and then move on.

And I think that that culture in our government would result in a vastly restraint scope of government, rather than today, is a one way at once you cause you to come in existence, you cause new things to come into existence. But the older one that came in existence continues to persist and exist as well. And that's where you get this metastasis over the last century.

So what kind of things do you think government should do, that the private sector, the forces of capitalism, would create, dress the inequalities, or create the kind of pain. We don't want to have a government.

If the question, what should government do? The private sector cannot all give you one, protect our border. Capitalism is never going to be the job of, or never give me the capability or in inclination, capitalists to preserve a national border.

And I think a nation is literally one of the chapters of this book. A A nation without borders is not a nation, almost a total logy. And open border is not a border capitalism.

I can solve that. What's gonna lay, that is a nation. Part of the job of the federal government is to protect the homeland of its station, in this case, the united states of america. That's an example of a proper function of the federal government to provide physical security to its citizens.

Another proper role of that federal government is to look after, or in this case, could be state government, to make sure that private parties cannot externalize their costs under somebody else without their consent. It's fancy way economist s would use to describe IT. What does that mean? That means if you go dump your chemicals in somebody else's river, then you're liable for that, so that ocma capitalist. And so I want to create things, and i'm going to do hell or high water, whether or not that harmless people around me.

The job of a proper government is to make sure that you protect the rights of those who may be harmed by those who are pursuing their own rights through a system of capitalism in seeking prosperity you're free to do in, but if you're hurting somebody else without their consent in the process, the government is there to enforce what is really just a different form of enforcing a private property, right? So I would say that there are two central functions of government is to preserve national boundaries in the national security of a homeland. And number two is to protect and preserve private property rights in the enforcement of those private property rights. And I think at that point, you've described about eighty and ninety percent of the proper role of the government.

What about an infrastructure?

Look, I think that most infrastructure can be dealt with through the private sector. And you get the specific s, you could have infrastructure that specific national security. I do think that military industrial basis is essential to provide national security.

That's a form of infrastructure. I don't think you could relax excuses on the private sector to provide the optimal level of that protection to an action. But interstate highways, you know, I think you could think about whether or not that's a common good that everybody benefits from, but nobody has the incentive to create. I think you could make an argument for the existence of of inner state highways, and you could also make powerful arguments for the fact that actually you could have enough private sector coops that could cause that becoming existence as well. But i'm not going to I am not dogmatic about this.

But broadly speaking, eighty ninety percent of the goal of federal government, i'm not not going to say one hundred, eight hundred and one hundred ty percent of the goal of the existence of a federal government should be to a government period, should be to protect national boundaries and provide security for the people who live there and to protect the private property rights of the people who resided there. If we restore that, I think we're well on our way to a revival of what our founding fathers and vision. And I think many of them would give you the same answer that I just stood.

So we get government out of education. Would you be also for reducing as a government in the states for educate? For some.

like education, if IT goes closer to municipalities in the states, i'm fine with that being a locus for people determining as, for example, this is a school districts attacks at the local level, for that to be a matter for municipalities and townships to actually decide democratically how they actually want that govern, whether it's baLances between public school district versus making that of same money available to families and form of vouchers or other forms of of ability to educational savings accounts, or whichever mechanism IT is to opt out of that.

If that's done locally, i'll have used on that. That tend to go further in the direction of true educational choice and diversity of choice, the implementation of charter schools, the granting of state charges, even lowering the barriers to granting when I favor those kinds of policies. But if we've got ten, the federal government out of IT that achieve seventy five percent of what I think we need to achieve, that i'm focused on solving other problems and leave that to the states and municipalities .

to to cover from there. So given this conversation, what do you think of elan's proposal of the department of government efficiency in the trumpet administration or really any .

administration, of course, bias because, elan, I have discuss that for the Better part of the last year and a half. And I think it's a great idea. I something that's very consistent with the core premise of my presidential candidacy.

I got to know him as I was running for U. S. President in a couple of events that he came to. And then we built a friendship after that. So obviously.

I think it's a great idea. Who do you think is more hard core on the cutting? You are iron.

but I think iran is. Iran is pretty hard core. Is I seventy five percent of the federal burek rats? And while was running for president, he said you need to put at least to seventy five percent so so I agree with him.

I think I would I think would be a fun competition to see who ends up who ends up more hard core. I think he I don't think there's someone out there is going to more hard core than here I would be. And the reason is I think we're both we share in common a willingness to take the risk and see what happens.

I mean, the sun will still rise in the eastern set in the west that much, I guarantee you, is there are ongoing to be some broken glass and some damage. Yes, there is. There's no way around that. But once you're willing to take that risk and IT doesn't become so scary anymore.

And and here's the thing like easy to say this, let's talk about with the rubber hits the road here, even even a second trump term is to be, you know, the discussion at present, present have had this conversation. But I think we would continue to have this conversation is where does IT rank on our prioritization list? Because there's always going to be a trade off if you have a different policy objective that you want achieve a good policy object, whatever that is, right? You could talk about immigration policy.

You could talk about economic policy. There are other policy objectives. You're going to trade off a little bit in the short run the effectively of your ability to Carry out that policy goal if you are also committed to actually thinking out the federal government by seventy five percent because there's just going to be some clunky ss, right? There's just going to be frictional costs for that level of cuts.

So the questions where does that rank on your prioritization list to pull that off to pull off a seventy five percent reduction in the size and scale of the federal government, the regulatory state and the headcount? I think that only happens if that's your top priority. You can do with a smaller scale.

But at that scale, IT only happens that's your top priority because then is president your opposition to say, I know in the super short run that might even make IT a little bit harder for me to do this other thing that I want to do and use the regulatory state to do IT, but i'm onna pass on that. I'm onna pass that up. I'm going to bear that hardship and inconvenience because I know this other goal is more important on the scale of decades and centuries for the country.

So it's a question of prioritization and and certainly, my own view is that now is a moment where that needs to be a top priority for saving this country. And if there's one thing about my campaign, I was if I was to do IT again, I would be even clear about X A duct, about a lot of things in the campaign. We can cover a lot of that too.

But if is, one thing that I care about more than anything else is dismantle that bureaucracy and more over to say it's an assault and a crusade on the nanny state itself. And that nani state presents itself in several forms, that there's the entitlement state is the welfare state presents itself in the form of the regulatory state. That's what we're talking about.

And then there's the foreign nani state. We are effectively, we are subsidizing other countries that aren't paying their fair share of protection or all the resources we provide them. How to summarize my ideology in a nutshell, IT is to terminate the nani state in the united states of amErica in all of its forms, the entitlement state, the regulatory state and the foreign policy, any state. Once we have done that, we've revived the republic that I think would make George washington proud.

You mention department education, but there's also the department of defense, and there's a very large number of very powerful people that i've gotten used to and a budget that's increasing and the number of wars and military conflict that's increasing. So we just talk about that. So this is the number one priority.

It's like there's difficulty levels here. The D O, D, A would be probably the hardest. So let's take that on what's what's your view on the military as a complex department of defense in wars in general.

So I think the the hanny state against the overall, i'm against the form policy. Any state as well start from that is the starting off point. And i'll tell you about my views on the deo d or defense.

First of all, I think that, and I think that I was easy for many people from the neocon school of that to caricature my views with the media at their side. But actually my own view is, if it's in the interest of the united states of amErica to provide certain levels of protection to us allies, we can do that as long as those allies actually pay for IT. And I think it's important for two reasons.

The less important reason is still important reason. The less important reason is it's still money for us, right? It's not like we're swiming in a cash surplus right now.

Thirty four truly melt national debt and growing. And I think pretty in the interest payments are going to be the largest line im in our own federal budget. So it's not like we have money willing to just hand over for free.

That's the less important reason, though the more important reason is that IT makes sure that our allies have actual skin in the game to not have skill incentives actually into conflicts where they're not actually bearing the full cost of those conflicts. So take nato for example. Most nado countries, literally a majority of nature countries today, do not pay or contribute two percent of their GDP to their own national defense, which is supposedly a requirement to be in nato.

So majority native countries are fAiling to meet. They're basic commitment to be in nature in the first place. Germany particularly, I think, arbitraging the hell out of the united states of america. And I don't think that i'm not going to be some sort of you know shrill voice here saying so therefore, we should not be supporting any allies or providing security blankets. I'm i'm not gone in that direction.

What I would says you're got to pay for IT, right? Pay for your future a because we're not swim to access money ourselves but be as IT tells us that you actually have skin the game for your own defense, which actually then makes nations far more prudent in the risks that they take where they are they versus if somebody else paying for and somebody is providing our security guards yeah again as well, you know, take the gamble and see where I end up at the end of a war versus the restraint that that imposes on the decision making of those allies. So now let's bring this, bring this home to the department defense.

I think the top goal of the U. S. Defense policy establishment should be to provide for the national defense of the united states of america.

And the irony is that we're actually doing most poorly. We're not really using other than the coast guard, we're not really using the U. S. Military to prevent crossings at own southern border and crosses that are other borders. In fact, the united states of america, our homeland, I believe, is less secure today than IT has been in a very long time.

Vulnerability to threats from hypersonic missile where china and russia, russia certainly has capabilities in excess of that of the united states, missiles hypersonic ans faster than the speed of sound that could hit the united states, including those Carry nuclear warheads. We are more vulnerable to super E M P attacks, electronic gitic house attacks that could, you know, without exaggeration, some of this could be from other nations. Some of these could even be from solar flares cause significant mass casualty in the united states of america.

The electric grids gone sound exaggeration to say, if that happened, planes will be falling out of the sky because our chips really depend on those electro be affected by the electronic gc pulses, more vulnerable to cyber attacks. I know this, all people start yearning and say, okay, boring stuff, super mp, cyber, whatever. No, actually, IT is pretty relevant to whether or not you actually are facing the risk of not getting your insulin because you refrigerator doesn't work anymore or your food can't be stored or your car, or your or your ability to fly an airplane is impaired.

okay. So I think that these are serious risks where our own national defense spending has been wholly inadequate. So i'm not one of these people that says we decrease with increase national defense spending.

We're not spending IT in the right places. The number who plays we need to be spending IT is actually protecting our national defense. And I think about protecting our own physical homeland. And I think we actually need an increase in spending on protecting our own homeland.

But that is different from the agenda, foreign interventionism and foreign n state ism for its own stake, where we should expect more in demand, more of our lives to provide for their own national defense and then provide the relevant security guarantees to allies where that actually advanced the interests of the united states of america. So that's what I believe. And you know, I think this process has been corrupted by what rides an hour, famously, in his farewell address called the military or industrial complex in the united states.

But I think it's it's bigger than just the, you know, I think it's easy to tell details of the financial corruption. It's a kind of cultural corruption and concede that just because certain number of people and that expert class have a belief that their belief happens to be the right one, because they can scare you with what the consequence would be if you don't follow their advice. One of the beauties of the united states is, at least in principal, we have civilian control of the military.

The person who we elect to be the U. S. President is the one that actually is the true commander in chief. I have my doubts of what that Operates that way.

I think that is quite obvious to job and is not a functioning commander, jeff, states of america, yet on paper, suppose that we still supose to call on that, but at least in theory, we're supposed to civilian control of the U. S. military.

And I think that one of the things that that leader needs to do is to ask the question of, again, the mission. What's the purpose of the U. S. Military in the first place? At the top of the list should be to protect the homeland, the people who actually live here, which were fAiling to do that's island in that question.

right? Okay, there's a lot of ask first on job. You mean he's functionally not a controlled the military because the age factor or because the nature of the presidency? Good question.

I would say in his case is particularly century because it's both. In this case, I don't think anybody in amErica any more believes that job in is the functioning president of the united states of america. How could be he wasn't even sufficently functioning to be the canada after a debate that was held in june? There's no way he's going to be in a position to make the most important decisions on a daily and demanding basis to protect deleting nation in the world.

Now more generally though, I think we have a deeper problem that even when it's not joe biden in general, the people we elect to run the government haven't really been the ones run in the government. It's been the unelected bureacracy and the bureau tic deep stayed underneath that's really been making the decisions. I have done business in a number of places of travel to japan.

This interesting corporate analogy, sometimes you get out, if you get outside of politics, people can find, listen and pay attention a little bit more because politics is so fraught right now that if you start talking to somebody who are disagrees, you do about the politics of IT, you're just budding heads, but not really make a progress. So let's make the same point, but go outside of politics for a second. So driving japan, I was having a late night dinner with a CEO of a japanese pharmacy, al company.

And if IT takes a while to really get them to open up culturally speak in japan, you know, couple nights of kao ke and and you what not? Maybe at late night, late night restaurant, whatever is what we build. Another related report, he was, was very handy with me.

He said that I see of the company, I could go and find the head of a research unit and tell them, okay, this is a project were no longer working on as a company we don't want to spend money on IT. We want to spend money somewhere else. And he looked me in the eye and he'll say, yes r yes, sir, i'll come back six months later and find that they're spending exactly the same amount money on those exact same project.

And i'll tell him, no, we agreed. I told you that you're not going to spend money on this project and we have to stop now. Should to stop six months ago get slap on the risk for IT? He says, yeah, i'm sorry.

Yes, no, no. Of course that's correct. Come back six months later, same person is spent the same money on the same project. And here's why history ally in japan.

And I should say in japan, this is changing now, is changing now, but historically until very recently, and even extend how it's near impossible to fire people. So somebody works for you and you can't fire them. That means they don't actually work for you.

IT means, in some deeper power sense, you work for them because you're responsible for what they do without any authority to actually change IT. So I think most people have traveled in japan, in japanese corporate culture through the nineteen nineties and two thousands and two thousand tens, and maybe even some investigating the wouldn't really dispute what I just told you. Now we're bringing back to the more contentious terrain.

I think that's basically how things have work in the executive branch of the federal government of the united states of america, you have these so called civil service protections on the books. Now, if you really read them carefully, I think that there are areas to provide daylight for a truly constitutionally well trained president to act. But apart from those, that's a contact view that I have that buck's conventional wisdom.

But apart from that cava in general, the convention of the U. S. sb.

And the U. S. President can't fire these people. There's four million federal bureaucrats.

Nine and nine point nine percent of them can be touched by the person who the people who elected to run the executive branch can't even fire those people. It's like equivalent of the japanese E. O. And so that culture exists every bit as much in the federal bureaucracy of the united states of amErica as they did in japanese corporate culture to the nineteen nineties.

And that's a lot of what's wrong with not just the way that our department of defense wrong and reform policy establishment is run, but I think that applies a lot of the domestic policy establishment as well. And IT come back to the core point, how we going to save this republic. This is the debate, the conservative movement right now.

This is a little bit be a bit spicy for some republicans to sort of swallow right now. And you know, my top focuses, make sure that we win the election, but let's move the ball forward, live in skate where the pockets going here. Okay, yes, let's say we win the election all as well.

And dad, okay, what's the philosophy that germany, how we govern? There's a little bit of a fork in the road among the conservatives where there are those who believe that the right answer now is to use that regulatory state and use those levers of power to advance our own pro conservative, pro american, pro worker goals. And i'm so politic to all of those goals, but I don't think that the right way to do IT is to create a conservative regulatory state that replaces a liberal regulatory state.

I think the right answers actually to get in there and shut IT down. I want to replace the left wing nani state with a rightwing nanny state. I want to get in there. And actually, this mental, the nanny state. And I think IT has been a long time in the united states, maybe ever in modern history, that we've had a conservative leader at the national level who makes IT their principal objective to dismantle the nanny state in all of its forms, the entitlement state, the regulatory state in the forest, gn policy in any state. That was a core focus of my candia y one of the things that I A wish, and this, I mean, not anybody else that I should have done Better, was to make that more Crystal clear as of focus without getting distracted by a lot of the, a lot of the sinani ans less to say that happened as side shows during a presidential campaign, but called that a lesson learned because I do think it's what the country needs now more than ever.

Yeah a it's a really, really powerful idea. It's actually something that a dal trump ran on in a two and sixteen. Drain the swap.

Drain the swap, I think, but most accounts maybe you can disagree with me. He did not successful do so. He did fire a lot of people more than usual.

Can I say word about the conditions he was opening in? Because I think is why i'm far more excited for this time round, is that a lot of change in the legal landscape. So downed trump did not have the supreme court backdrop in two thousand and sixteen that he does today.

So there is some really important cases that have come down from the supreme court. One is west Virginia versus E P. A. I think it's prise the most important case of our generation in two and two and two that came down and said that if congress has not passed a rule into law itself through the holes of congress, and that relates to what they call a major question, a major possible economic question, IT can be done by the stroke of a pen, by a regulator and unelected bureaucrats. That quite literally means most federal regulations today are in constitution.

This year comes on a different big one, not the big one from the supreme court in the looper bright case, which held that historically for last fifty years in this country. The doctor on has been called several difference is a doctor on that is that federal courts have to differ to an agencies interpretation of the law. They now toss that at the window.

And in order of the federal courts no longer have to defer to an agencies product of what the law actually is. The combination of those two cases is size mic in its impact for the regulatory state. There's also another great case that came down with c versus jarka y and in the S, C is one of these agencies that embodies everything we're talking about here.

C, among other agencies, has tribunals inside that not only do they write the rules, not only do they enforce those rules, they also have these judges inside the agency that also interpret the rules and determine and dull out punishments that does not makes sense with, if you believe in separation of powers in the united states. So the supreme court put in ended that and said, the debt practice of the cc and constitutional actually, aside of the supreme court, has said countless practices and rules written by the S. C C, the E P A, the ftc in recent years were out right and constitutional.

Think about what that means for a constitutional republic that supposedly these law enforcement agencies, the courts have now said, especially this year, the courts have now said that their own behavior actually break the law. So the very agencies entrusted with supposedly enforcing the law are actually behaving with other batten disregard for the law itself. That's on american.

It's not tenable in the united states of america. But thankfully, we now have a supreme court that recognizes that. So you know whether or not we have a second trump term, well, that's up to the voters.

But even whether not that now takes advantage of that backdrop with the serving court has given us to actually cut the regulatory state will find out I I am optimistic, I certainly think is the best chance that we've had in a generation in this country. That's a big part of live sporting Donald trump in and while and everything in my power to help him. But I do think IT is going to take a spin of steel to see that through.

And then after we have taken on the regulatory state, I think that's the next step. But I do think there's this broader project of dismantling the nanny state in all of its forms, the entitlement state, the regulatory state and the foreign policy. In penny state, three word answer was to summarize my world view and my presidential campaign in three words, shut IT down.

Shut down. okay. So the supreme court case, you mentioned the ly new ones there. Yeah I guess it's weakening the immune system of the different department.

Yes, it's putting .

OK on the human psychology level. So you basically a kind of implied a for dona trum or for any president, the the legal situation was difficult. Was that the only thing really Operating like isn't IT just on a psychological level? Just um hard 的 价 to fire a very large number of people。 Is that what that is like? Why is there a basic civility and moments going?

One other factors you see your right to point, I mean the legal backdrop is is a valid and understandable excuse and reason. Um I think there are other factors at play, too. So I think there's something to be said for never having been in government showing up there the first time and you're having to understand the rules of the road as you're Operating within them and also having to depend on people who actually aren't aligned with your policy vision, but tell you to your face that they are.

And so I think that's one of the things that i've admired about president trump as he's actually been very open about that, very humble about that, to say that there's a million learnings from that first time that make him ambitious and more ambitious in that second term. But everything i'm talking to about this is what this happened in the country is not specific to download rop. It's it's lays out what needs to be done in the country.

There's the next four years down. Trump is our last best hope and chance for moving that ball forward. But I think that the the vision i'm line out here is one that hopefully goes even beyond just the next two or four years of really fixing a century's worth of mistakes.

I think going to fix a lot of them in the next four years of downtown trumps president. But if you have a century's worth of mistakes that have accumulated was the overgrowth of the entitlement state in the us. I think it's gonna take, you know, probably the Better part of a decade at least.

to actually fix them. I disagree with you on both the last and the best hope. Uh, I downton mp is more likely to fire a lot of people, but is he the best person to do so?

We get two candidate, right? People face a choice. This is a relevant election. One of my goals is to speak to people who may not agree with one hundred percent of odd ald, who do not agree with one hundred percent of odd ald.

And I can tell them, know what? I don't agree with one hundred percent of what he says, and I can tell you somebody who ran against him for U. S. President, that right now he is, when I say the last best hope pe, I mean, in this cycle, the last best hope that we have for dismantling that bureaucratic class.

And now I think that i'm also open about the fact that it's going to take this is a long room project, but we have the next step actually the next step actually take over the next few years. That's kind of where I lend on. I mean, you talk to him. I just a few weeks ago, I saw at a party of them, right? What was your impression about his his preparedness to do IT?

My impression is his priority allocation was different than yours. I think he's more focused on some of the other topics that you are .

more more focused on.

And there is attention there. Just as you have clearly highlighted.

we share the same priority with respect to the southern border and that, that in this are near term fixes that we can hit out of the park in the first year. But at the same time, I think we've got to think also on decade long time horizon.

So my own view is I think that I think that he IT is my conviction and belief that he does care about dismantling that fetal bureaucracy, certainly more so than any republican nominee we have had in certainly in my lifetime. But I do think that they're gonna be competing schools of thought where some will say, okay, well, we want to create a lightning entitled state right to shower federal subsidies on favorite industries while keeping them away from this favorite industries and new bureaucracies administer them. And you know, I I don't come from that school, thought I don't want to see the bureaucracy expand in a pro conservative direction.

I want to see the bureaucracy shrink in every direction. And I do think that from my conversations, donal trump, I believe that he is well aligned with this vision of shrinking bureaucracy. But that's a long of a project.

There's so many priorities at play here though. I mean, you really do have to do the elon thing of walking into twitter header sink, right? Let that sinks in that basically firing a very large number of people. And it's but not just about the firing, it's about setting clear missions for the different departments that remain uh, hiring back over fire, hiring back based metal curacy and is is a full time. And it's not it's not only full time in terms of actual time, it's full time psychologically because you're walking into a place unlike a company like twitter, an already successful company in government. I mean, everybody around you, all the experts, advisers are going to tell you you're wrong and like it's a very difficult psychological place to Operate and because like you're constantly the esco and I mean the the certainty you have to have about what you're doing is just like nearly infinite because everybody, all the really smart people are telling, you know, this is a terrible idea, sir, this is a terrible idea.

You have to have the spine of steel to cut through with that short term advices you're getting. And i'll tell you certainly, yes, I I intend to to do whatever I can for this country, both in the next four years and beyond. But my voice on this will be Crystal clear and present.

Trump knows this. My view on IT and and I believe he shares a deeply, is that all of equal, get there and shut down. And as much of the excess bureaucracy as we can do as quickly as possible and have a big part how we save our country.

Okay, i'll give an example that's really difficult. Sion, giving your priorities. immigration. There is an estimated fourteen million illegal immigrants in the united states. You spoken about mass deportation.

Yes, that .

requires a lot of effort, right? money. I mean, like how do you do IT and how does that conflict with the shutting IT down?

sure. And so IT goes back to the original discussion we had is what is what are the few proper roles of the federal government I gave you to? One is of the government period.

One is to protect the national borders and sovereign of the united states to us, to protect private property rights. There's a lot else. Most of what the governments doing today, both the federal state level, is something other than those two things.

But in my book, those are the two things that are the proper function of government. So for everything else, the federal government should not be doing the one thing they should be doing to protect the homeland of the united states of amErica and the sovereignty and sanctions over national borders. So in that domain, that's missionary gn, with a proper purpose for the federal government, I think we're a nation, found IT on the rule of law.

I say, this is the kind of legal immigrants that means your first active in in this country cannot break the law. And in some ways, if I was to summarize a formula for saving the country over the next four years, IT would be a tale of two mass deportations, the mass deportations of millions of illegals who are in this country and should not be. And then the mass deportation of millions of unelected federal be reruns out of washington, D.

C. Now all of equally could say those are intention, but I think that the reality is anything outside of the scope of what the core function of the government is, which is protecting boris and protecting private property rights. That's really where I think the predominant cuts need to be.

And you look at the number of people looking after the order, it's not even point one percent of the federal employee base today. So seventy five percent is ninety nine point nine nine percent. It's seventy five percent, which still leaves that I would still be a tiny fraction of the remaining twenty five percent, which I actually think needs to be more rather than less. There was a good question, but that sort of where I land on when it's a proper role of federal government, great act to actually do your job. The irony is nine and nine point nine, nine, nine and nine percent of those resources are going to functions other than the protection of private property rights and the protection of our national physical protection.

There is a lot of criticism of the idea of mass deportation, though. So one enoff IT will cause A A large amount of economic harm, at least in the short term. The other is there would be a potential violations of our kind of higher ideals of how we like to treat humans beings, in particular separation of families for example h tearing family family apart um and the other is just like the logistical complex of doing something like this. How do you answer some of those criticisms is fair?

Or and I would call those even something Chris ism, but just thought for questions, right, even to somebody who's really aligned with doing those thoughtful questions to ask. So everyone who says the thing about this point on on how we think about the break age of the rule of law, other context, there were three hundred and fifty thousand mothers who are in prison in the united states today who committed crimes and were convicted of them.

They didn't take their kids with them to those prisons either, right? So we face difficult trade, ffs, in all kinds of contexts as that relates to the enforcement of law. And I just want to make that basic observation against the backdrop of if our nation found around the rule of law that we acknowledge that there are trade ffs, to enforcing the law, and we acknowledge that other context.

I don't think that we should have a special exemption for saying that somehow we weigh the other way. When he comes to issue of the border, or a nation found in the rule of law, we force laws that has costs, that has trade, ffs, but is who we are. So that backdrop is in the the easier that I can sight is doing to fifty thousand or so mothers or in prison and did not take their kids to prison with them, is that bad?

That is, is, is undesirable for the kids to grow up without those three and forty thousand mothers. IT is. But it's a difficult situation created by people who violated the law and face the consequences of that, which is also a competing, an important priority in the country.

That's in the domestic context as IT relates to this question of master deportations. That just get very practical because all that was the radical very practically, there's ways to do this, starting with people have already broken the law. People who ever not just broken the law entering but are committing other crimes were already here in the united states.

That's a clear case for instant mastery portion. You have a lot of people who have been integrated into their communities. You don't think about the economic impact of this. A lot of people are in detention already. A lot of those people should be immediately returned to their country of origin, or at least what is called a safe third country.

So safe third country means, even if somebody's claiming to seek a yy lum from political persecution, will move into another country that doesn't have to be the united states of amErica that they passed through, say, mexico, before actually come in here. Other countries are around the world are doing this. Australia is detained people.

They don't let them out and live a Normal, joyful life because they came in the country. They detained them until their cases are judicael. The rates of fraud in australia of what people lie about, what their conditions are, is way lower now than in the united states, because people respond to those incentives.

So I think that in some ways, people make this sound much bigger than career than that needs to be. I taken a depty, pragmatic approach, and the north star for me, as I want the policy that helps the united states citizens who are already here. What's that policy? Clearly, that can be a policy that includes a large number of deportations.

I think by definition, it's going to be the largest mass deportation in american history. Sounds like a punch line at a campaign rally. But actually it's a factual statement that says, if we've had the, by far largest influx of illegal immigrants in american history, IT just stands to reason its logic that, okay, we're going to fix that.

We going to have the largest mass deportation in american history. And we can be rational. Start with people who break in the law in other ways here in the united states.

Start with people who are already in detention or entering detention. Now that comes at no cost and strict benefit. There is even a little bit of an economic trade off. Then you get to areas where you would say, okay, the cost actually continued out, where the benefits, and that's exactly where our policy should be guided. Here I want to do IT with in a respectful and is humane of a manner is possible.

Mean, the reality is, I think one of the things we got to remember give the example I gave with the haien case in springfield town that spent a lot of time and growing up in ohio. I love about an hour from there today. I don't blame the individual patients who came here.

I'm not saying that they're bad people because in that particular case, those weren't even people who broke the law in coming here. They came as part of a program called temporary protective status. Now the Operative word, there is the first one, temporary. They have been all kinds of lawsuits.

There been all kinds of lawsuits for people who even eight, ten, twelve, fourteen years after the earthquake and hate where many of them came, when they going to be removed, their allegations of racial discrimination, otherwise, no temporary protective that this means it's temporary. And we're not abandoning the rule of law. When we send him back, we're abandoning the rule of law when we let them stay.

Now, if that has a true benefit to the united states of america, economic clear, otherwise go through the pads that allows somebody to enter this country for economic reasons. But you do IT through asylum based claims or temporary protective desk. I think one of the features of our immigration system right now is IT is built on a lie and IT incentivises line.

The reason is the arguments for keeping people in the country if those are economic reasons, but the people actually entered using claims of asylum or refugee status. Those two things don't match up. So just be honest about what our immigration system actually is.

I think we do need dramatic reforms to the legal immigration system to select purposely for the people who are going to actually improve the united states of america. I think there are many people I know some of them, right? I gave a story of one guy who I met who was a educated our best universities, or among our best universities.

We went to prince tiny, went to harder business school. He has a great job in the investment community. He was a professional tennis player.

He was a concertinas. He could do a rubik cube in less than a minute. I'm not making the stuff of these are hard facts. He can get a Green car in the united states. Have been here for ten years or something like this.

He asked me for the best advice I could give him, unfortunately could not, given the actual best advice, which would be to just take a flight to mexico across the border and claim to be somebody who is seeking asylum in the united states, that that would have been morally wrong advice I didn't give to him, but practically, if you were giving a advice, that would be the best advice that you actually could give some money, which is a broken system on both sides. People are going to make those contributions to the united states and pledge legions to the united states and speak our language in a similar we should have a path for them to be able to add value to the united states. Yet they're not the ones who are getting in.

It's actually the people our immigration system selects for people who are willing to lie. That's what IT does selector people who are willing to say they're seeking refugee status or seeking asylum when in fact they're not. And then we have policymakers who lie after the fact using economic justifications to keep them here.

But if IT was an economic justification that should have been the criteria you used to bring them in the first place, not this illusion of asylum or refugee status. There was case actually, even the new york times reported on this, believe IT or not, of a woman who came from russia fleeing flooding your putins intolerant L G B T N T L G B T Q regime. SHE was fleeing persecution by the evil man putin.

SHE came here. And eventually, when he was pressed on the series of lies, IT came out that he was crying finally, when he broke down and IT at this, so that i'm not even gay. I don't even like gay people.

That's what he said. And yet he was pretending to be some sort of L G B T Q. Advocate who was persecuted in russia when in fact, he was just somebody who was seeking Better economic conditions in the united states. I'm not saying you're wrong to seeking Better economic conditions in the, but you are wrong to lie about IT, and that's what you're seeing.

A lot of people, even in this industry of of sort of quote, quote tourism in the united states there having their kids in the united states, they go back to their home country, but their kids enjoy a birthright citizenship that built on a lie, yet people claiming to suffer from persecution. In fact, they're just working in the united states than living in these relative mentions in parts of mexico or central amErica after they've spent four, five years making money here. Just abandon lie this just have an immigration system built on an honesty.

Just tell the truth. If the argument is that we need more people here for economically fillings, skeptical the extent to which a lot of those arguments actually being triple, let's have that debate the open rather than having IT through the back door saying that it's refugee and asylum status when we know it's a lie. And then we justified after the fact by saying that economically helps the united states cut the dishonesty.

And I just think that that is a policy we would do well to expand every sphere we talk about, from the military industrial complex to the rise of the managerial class, to a lot of what our governments covered up a their own history, to even this question of immigration today. Just tell the people the truth. And I think our government would be Better serving .

our people if I did. Yeah, in the way you describe eloquently, the immigration system is broken in that way that is built fundamentally on lies. But there's the other side of IT.

You know, illegal immigrants are used in the political campaign for fear mongering, for example. So what I would like to understand is, what is the actual harm that illegal immigrants are causing? So the claim, one of the more intense claims is of crime. And I don't haven't study this rigorously, but through the surface level studies all show that legal and illegal immigrants commit less crime than in america.

I think is true for legal immigrants. I think not illegal immigrants. That's not what I saw. So I in part of this part of I wrote this book, okay, and mean, the book is called truths.

So Better done will have well source facts in here, right? We can't be made up hypotheses, our troops. And there a chapter, even in my own research on IT looks, man, a lot about this issue for my time is presidential canada.

But even in writing the chapter on the border here, I learned a lot from a lot of different dimensions, and some of which even caused media revise some of my premises going into IT. Okay, my main thesis in that chapter is forget the demonization of illegal, illegal immigrants or whatever, as you put that right for your mongo, just put all that to one side. I want an immigration system that is built.

honesty. Identify what the objective is. We could debate the objectives. We have different opinions on the objectives.

Some people may say the objective is the economic growth of the united states. I make that I air argument in this book, and I think that that's insufficient. Personally, personally, I think you need the united states is more than just an economic zone.

IT is a country. IT is a nation bound together by civic ideals. I think we need to screen, not just for immigrants were going to make economic contributions, but those who speak our language, those were able to simulate, and those who share the civic ideals and know the U.

S. History even Better than the average of citizen who's here. That's what I believe. But even if you disagree me, and they learned that the sole goal is economic production in the united states, then at least have an immigration system that's honest about that, rather than one which claims to sole for that goal.

By bringing in people who are rewarded for being a refugee, we should reward the people in that model, which is, I don't know, this should be the whole model. But even if that we are model, reward the people who are demonstrated have demonstrably proven that they would make economic contributions to the united states, not the people who have demonstrated that they're willing to lie to achieve a go. And right now, our immigration system is IT rewards one quality over any other.

There's one parameter that IT rewards over any other IT isn't civic legended the united states IT isn't fluency english IT isn't the ability to make an economic contribution to this country. The number one attribute, human attribute, that our immigration system rewards is whether or not you are willing to lie and the people who are telling those lies about whether they are seeking asylum or not are the ones who are most likely to get in, and the people who are most unwilling to tell those lies are the ones who are actually not getting in. That is a hard, uncomfortable truth about our immigration system and in the reason is the loss as you only get asylum if you're onna face bodily harm or near term risk of bodily injury based on your religion, your ethnicity or certain other factors and so when you come into the country, you asked, do you foot, fill that criteria or not in the number one way to get into this country to check the box and say yes.

So that means just systematically, I imagine if your university, harvard or yale or whatever, you're running your admissions process, the number one attribute you're selecting for isn't your S T score IT isn't your GPA IT isn't your athletic accomplishments. It's whether or not you're willing to lie on the application. You're going have a class populated by a bunch of Charlotte and flags.

That's exactly what our immigration system is doing to the united states of america. Is is literally selecting for the people who willing to lie. Let's see if somebody who's a person of integrity is OK.

I want a Better life for my family, but I want to teach my kids that i'm not going to lie or breaks a lot to do IT. That person is infinitely less likely to get into the united states that I know that sounds a provocative to frame IT that way, but IT is is not an opinion. IT is a fact that that is the number one human attribute that our current immigration system is selecting for.

I wanted immigration and system center on honesty. In order to implement that, we require acknowledge the goals of of our immigration as tomorrow in the first place. And there we have competing visions on the right. Okay, I amongst conservatives are rift.

Some conservatives believe I, respecting for the honesty I disagree with them, believe that the goal of the immigration system should be to impart, protect american workers from the effects of foreign wage competition, that if we have immigrants going to bring down Prices and we need to protect american workers from the effects of that downward pressure on wages, it's a goal. It's a coherent goal. I don't think it's the right goal, but many my friends on the right believe that's a goal.

At least it's honest. And then we can design a omc honest immigration system to achieve that goal. If that their goal, I have other friends on the right that said, the sole goals, economic growth, nothing else matters. I disagree with that as well.

My view the goal should be whatever enriches the civic quality of the united states of amErica that includes those who know the language, know our ideals, pledge regions to those ideals, and also willing to make economic contributions to the country, which is one of our ideals as well. But whatever is, we can have that debate. I have a very different view.

I don't think it's a proper role of immigration policy to make a form of labor policy because the united states, america's fatal on excEllence, we should be able to compete. But that's a policy debate we can have. But right now, we are not even able to have the policy debate because the whole immigration policy is built on not only a lie, but on rewarding those who do lie. And that's what I want to see change.

They're just a linger a little bit on the demonization um and to bring and culture into the picture. Hf, which I recommend, uh, people should listen to your conversation with her. I have listed very much, but he had this thing where she's clearly admires and respects you as a human being.

And SHE is basically saying, you're one of the good ones. And this idea that you had this brilliant question of, like, what does that mean to be an american? And SHE basically said, not you, the VC.

But SHE said, what maybe, maybe you, but not people like you. So that whole kind of approach to immigration, I think, is really anti mcrae, even ani american, anti american. And so I want to confront this directly.

because IT is a popular current on the american right there is am not pick on and culture specifically. I think actually it's a much more widely shared view. And I just given at least credit for willing to articulated a view that the blood and soil is what makes for american identity, or genetic lineages.

And I just reject that view. I think it's anti american. I think what makes for american identity is your allegiance, your underbit alleges to the founding ideals of this country, and your willing instability, gia legions, to those ideas. So those are two different views. I think that there is a view on the american right right now that says that we're not a real nation, that our nation not about a creed, it's about a physical place in a physical homeland.

I think that view fails on several accounts, obviously, where a nation, every nation, has to a geographic s space that so obviously we are, among other things, of geographic space, but the essence of the united states of america, I think, is the common creed, the ideals that hold that combination together. Without that, a few things happen. First of all, american exceptionalism becomes impossible.

And I say why every other nation is also built on the same idea. Most nations have been built on common blood and soil arguments, genetic stock of. Italy or japan would have a stronger national identity, the united states, in that case, because they have a much longer tending claim on what they're genetic liniang really was.

The ethnicity of the people is far more pure in those in those context than in the united states, that the first, the american exceptionalism becomes impossible. The second is there's all kinds of contract diction that then start to emerge. If your claim on american identity is defined based on how long you've been here, well, on the native americans would have a far greater claim of being american than somebody who came here on the mayflower, somebody who came here afterwards.

Now, maybe that blood and soil views international, it's not quite. The native americans only have to start at this point and into this point. So on this view of blood and soil, identity has to be okay. You couldn't have come before a certain year, then he doesn't count. But if you came after a certain year, IT doesn't count either.

That just becomes highly uncompelled as a view of what american national hintin ity actually is versus my view that american national identity is granted on whether or not you pledge allegiance to the ideals qualified in the declaration of independence and actualized in the U. S. constitution.

And you know, it's been said, some of my friends on the right have said things like, you know, people will not die for a set of ideals. People want fight for abstractions or abstract ideals actually deserve. With that, the american revolution basically disproves that the american revolution was fought for anything over abstract ideals.

That said that you know what, we believe in self governance and free speech and free exercise of religion. That's what we believe in the last states to just different from old world england. So I do think that there is this brewing debate on the right.

And do I disagree like hell with and culture on this? absolutely. And did I take serious issue with some of the things he told me? absolutely. But I also believe that SHE had the stones to say, if I may say that way, that things that many on the right believe, but haven't quite articulated in the way that he has. And I think we need to have that debate in the open now.

Person, I think most of the conservation movement actually is with me on this, but I think it's become a very popular counter narrative in the other direction. To say that, you know, your vision of american identity is tied is from a physical in nature. To me, I think IT is still ideals based in nature. And I think that that's a good debate for the future us for us to have in the conservative movement. And I think it's going to be a defining feature of you know what direction the conservation movement goes in the future.

Uh, a quick pause bathroom. Yeah let me ask you to, again, still meet the case for and against trump so my biggest for him as a the fake electors scheme of the twenty election and actually the twenty election in the way you formulated in the nation of victims. It's just the entirety of that process. Instead of focusing on winning a doing a lot of winning. I like people that win that wine, even when the refs are in whatever direction.

So look, I think the united states of america, I preached this to the left. I preach IT to my kids. We get to accepted our own side too.

Were not going to save this country by being victims. Were onna save this country by being Victorious? okay? And I don't k with its left doing victim hod right in victimhood.

I'm against victim od culture. The number one factor that determines whether you achieve something in life is you. I believe this not the only factor that matters. There's a lot of other factors that affect when they're not, you succeed. Life is not fair.

But I tell my kids the same thing, the number one factor that determines whether or not you succeed and achieving your goal as you if I tells to my kids and I preached to the left and preach that their own inside as well. Now that being said, that's just a philosophy. Okay, that's a personal philosophy.

You ask me to do something different, and i'm always authentic. One of things that the standard I hope that people hold me to and they read this book as well as I try to do that in this book, is to give the best possible argument for the other side. You don't want to give some linkin argument for the other side and knock IT down.

You want to give the best possible argument for the other side and then offer your own view, or else you don't understand your own. So you ask me, what's the strongest case against donal trump? Well, I went for you as president against deal trump.

So i'm going to give you what my perspective is. I think it's nothing of what you hear on mn, bc. You're from the left attacking him to be a threat to democracy in all of that. Actually, on sense, I actually think this is if you were making that case, you know, I here's my full support, as you know.

But if you were making that case, I think for many voters who are over the next generation, they're asking a question about, how are you gonna understand the position that, I mean, as a member of a new generation, the same criticism is that of biden. They could say, oh, well, are you too old? Are you from a different generation that's too far removed from my generations concerns? And I think that that's in many ways, the factor that waves on that was wearing on both trump and biden.

But when they played the trick of swapping out job, den IT left that issue much more on the table for dona trumps. So you asked me to still met. That's what I would say when I look at what's the number one issue that I would need to persuade the independent voters of to say that this is still the right choices, even though the other side claims to offer a new generation of leadership. Here is somebody who is one of the older presidents we all have had who was elected. How do we convince those people to vote from?

That's what I would give you in that category. You're right. But I get IT and h, you share a lot of ideas without trump.

So I get when you're running for president that you would say that kind of thing. But there's you know there's other criticism you could provide. And again, on the twenty twenty.

let me ask you, you you spoke to Donald trump recently, what's your top objection to potentially vote for a donal trump in? And let me see if I .

can address that 2 election and not in the a what is the T， D S kind of objection? It's just I don't think there's clear definitive evidence that there was a voter fraud.

And I think .

there is a lot of interesting topics about the influence of media, of a tech and so on. But I want a president that has a good, clear relationship with the truth and knows what truth is, what is true and what is not true. And moreover, I want a person who doesn't play victim, like you said, who focuses on winning and winning big.

And if they lose, like walk away with honor and win bigger next time, or like channel that into growth and winning, winning in the mother direction. So just like the strength of being able to give everything you got to win and walk away with honor if you lose. And everything that happened on twenty, twenty election is just goes against that to me.

So I responded that yeah, I was at the candidate, but I could even my perspective, I think we have seen some growth from Donald trump over that first term in the experience in the twenty and twenty election. And you've hear a lot of that on the campaign. I heard a lot of that even in the conversation that he had with you.

I think he is more ambitious for that second term than he was for that first term. So and that that was the most interesting part of what you just said is you're looking for somebody who has growth from their own experiences. Say what you will.

I have seen personally, I believe, some meaningful level of personal growth and ambition for what downed d trump hopes to achieve for the country in the second term that he wasn't able to for one reason or another code. You could put a lot of different things on IT. But in that first term, now I think the facts of the backdrop of the twenty twenty election actually like really do matter.

I don't think going to isolate one particular aspect of criticizing the twenty twenty election without looking at IT holistically. On the eve of the twenty twenty presidential election, we saw systematic bureaucratically in government aided suppression of probably the single most important piece of information released, the evil that election, the hundred by and laptop stories revealing potentially a compromised U. S.

presidental. canada. His family was compromised by foregone interests, and IT was suppressed as misinformation by every major tech company. The new york post had its own twitter account locked at that time, and we now know that many of the censorship decisions made in the year twenty twenty were actually made at behest. T of us. Bureaucratic actors in the deep state threatening those tech companies to do IT, or also those tech companies would face consequence.

I think IT might be the most undemocratic thing that happened in the history of our country, actually, is the way in which government actors who are never elected to the government used private sector actors to suppress information on the evil of an election that, based on polling afterwards, likely did influence the outcome of the twenty presidential election. That was election interference of the highest daughter. So I think that, that is a hard fact we'll have to contend with.

And I think a lot of what you've heard in terms of complaints about the twenty election, whatever those complaints I have been take place against the backdrop of large technology companies interfering in that election in a way that I think did have an impact on the outcome. I personally believe one hundred by laptop story had not been suppressed and censored. I think Donald trump would have been unambiguous.

I, the person says right now would be double trump. No doubt about IT. In my mind, you look appalling before, after the impact that would have had on the independent voter. Now you look at, okay, here, let's think about constructive solutions, because I care about moving the country forward.

What is the constructive solution to this issue of concerns about election integrity? Here's one single day voting on election day as a national holiday with paper ballots and government issued voter ID to match the voter file. I favor that we do IT even import reo, which is a territory of the united states.

Why not do that everywhere in the united states? And i'll make a pledge. I'll do IT right here, right? My pledge is, as a leader in our movement, I will do everything in my power.

To make sure we are done complaining about stolen elections. If we get to that simple place of basic election security measures, I think the'd be unified to make election day national holiday that unites us around our civic purpose. One day, single day.

Voting on election day is a national holiday with paper ballots and government issued vote Ariely to match the voter file. Let's get there is a country and you have my word. I will lead our movement in whatever way I can to make sure we are done complaining of our storm elections and fake ballots. And I think the fact that you see resistance to that proposal, which is otherwise very practical, very reasonable, non partisan proposal, I think the fact of that resistance actually provokes a lot of understandable skepticism, understandable skep pt ism of OK. What what else is actually going on if not if not that what exactly is going on here?

Well, I think I I agree with a lot of things you said probably disagree, but is hard to disagree with a honour bin laptop story whether that would have changed. And I look at .

some post election polling about the views that that would have had and I can can prove that you .

but as my instinct is my I think there's probably that's just one example um maybe a sexy example of a bias in the in the complex of the media and there's bias in the other direction too. But uh, probably there's bias is hard to character .

question because bias is one thing, bias in reporting censorship is another. So I would I would be open minded to hearing an instance of and if I did here, I would condemn of the government systematically ordering tech companies to suppress information that was favorable to democrats, suppress that information to lift up republicans, if there was an instance that we know of government bureaucrats that were ordering technology companies covertly to silence information that voters, otherwise we've had to advantage republicans at the ballot box to ensure that I would beginning that.

And I would condemn that with equal force, as I do, to the suppression of the hundred and laptop story, suppression and censorship of the origin of covert. All happened in twenty twenty. These are hard facts. I'm not aware of one instance. If you are aware of one, let me know because I would condemn .

most people in that companies are privately their political pressures on the left, and most journalists, majority journalists, are on the left. But the character is the actual reporting and the impact of the reporting in the media and the impact the censorship is difficult to do. But that's a real problem. Just like we talked about a real problem, immigration.

Different problems that I think you are important issues. One is bias in reporting. One is censorship of information. So bias in reporting, I felt certainly the recent presidential debate moderated by A, B, C was biased in the way that I was connected. But that's a different issue from saying that voters don't get access to information through any source.

So this hundred by laptops, to who we now know that IT contains evidence of foreign interference in potentially the by administration and their families incentive structure. That story was systematically suppressed. So in the united states of america, if you wanted to find that on the internet, through any major social media platform, or through even google search, that story was suppressed or downplayed algorithmically that you couldn't see IT even on twitter.

If you try to send IT via direct message, that's the equivalent of email, right? Sending a pieter message, they blocked you from even being able to send that story using private messages. That I think is a different level of concern.

That's not bias at that point. That's all right. Interference in whether or not you that's alright.

difference. election. Let's do a thought experiment here. Let's suppose that russia orchestrated that.

What would the backlash? Py, let's say the russian government orchestrated the U. S. Election was interfering in IT by saying the tech companies, they worked them covertly to stop us citizens from being able to see information on the even election.

There would be a mass uproar in this country if the russian government created well, if actors in the U. S. Government bureaucracy or the U.

S. Technology industry bureaucracy orchestrated the same thing. Then we can apply a different standard to say that if russia did IT, it's really bad in the interfere in our election.

But if IT happened right here in the united states of america, and by day they blame russia for IT falsely on the russian disinformation of the other band laptop story that was false claim. We have applied the same standard od in both cases. And so the fact that if that were russian interference, IT would have been an outcry, but now happen domestically. And we just call that he is a little bit of bias ahead an election. I don't think that, that's a fair characterization of how important that.

okay. So the the connection of government to platform is that should not exist. The government, F, B, I or anybody else should not be able to pressure platforms to send the information.

Yes, we can talk about politics ship there. There should not be any censorship, and there not should not be media bias. And you're right to complain if there is media bias.

And we can lay out on the open and try to fix that system. That said, the voter fraud d thing you you can't write wrong by doing another wrong. You can't just if there's some shady, shady stuff going on in the media and the censorship complex, you can just make shit up. You can do the fake electric scheme and then do a lot of shady crappy behavior during january six and try to like, sure, cut your way just because your friend is cheating a monopoly. When you're playing monopoly, you can you shouldn't see yourself honest and like the honor and use your platform to uh, help fix the system versus like cheat your way.

So here's my view is, has any us politician ever been perfect throughout the course of american history? no. But do you want if you want to understand the essence of what was going around in two and twenty, the mindset of the country.

We had a year where people in this country were systematically locked down, told to shut up, sit down, do as they're told, unless their bill or anti varios, in which case is perfectly fine for them to burn cities down. We were told that we're going to have an election of free infair election, and then they were denied information systematically heading into that election, which is really important, and in this case, damming information about one of the parties. And then you tell these people that they still have to continue to shut up and comply.

That creates, I think, a real culture of deep frustration in the united states of america. I think that the reaction to systematic censorship is never good. History teaches us that it's not good in the united states is not good.

At another point in the history, the united states, the reaction, the systematic, coordinated censorship and restrains in the freedom of a free people is never good. And if you want to really understand what happened, one really wants to get to the bottom of IT, rather than, you know, figuring out who to point fingers that that really was the essence of the national malays. In the end, twenty twenty is IT was the year of unjust policies, including cover thousand nine hundred lockdowns systematic lies about IT lies about the election that created a level of public frustration that I think was understandable.

Now the job of leaders is to how to a channel that in the most productive direction possible. And your question, you know, to the independent vote out. They are evaluating, as you are. Do I think the Donald d trump is exhibited a lot of growth based on his experiences in his first term and what he hopes to achieve in the second term? I think that there's absolutely yes.

And so even if you don't agree with everything that he's said or done in the choice ahead of us in this election, I still believe he's unambiguously the best choice to revive that sense of national pride and also prosperity in our country. So people aren't in in the condition where they're suffering at beeste of government policies that leave them angry and channel at anger in other unproductive ways. Not the best way to do IT is actually actions do speak louder than words. Implement the policies that make people's lives Better. And I do think that that's the next step of how .

we must save the country. Are you worried if in this election is a close election and the Donald trump loses by whisker, that there's chaos? That's that's unleased. How do we minimize the chance of that?

I may I don't think that's a concern to frame narrowly in the context of Donald trump winning IT or losing IT by a whisker. R I think this is a man who in the last couple of months, in span of two months, has faced two assassination attempts. And we're not talking about about theoretical attests, like gunshots fired.

That is history changing in the context of american history, even seen that in the generation. And yet now that has become Normalized in the U. S.

So do I worried we're skating on thin ice as a country? I do. I do think IT is a little bit strange to obsess over our concerns of national and media concerns over Donald d. Trump, when in fact, he's the one on the receiving end of fire from assailants who reported layer saying exactly the kinds of things about him that you hear from the democratic machine.

And I do think that IT is irresponsible, at least for the democratic party, to make their core case against downtown with jobs and entire message for years that he's a threat to democracy into the distance of america. If you keeps saying that about somebody against the backdrop conditions that we live in as a country, I don't think that's good for nation. And so do I have concerns about the future of the country? Do I think we're skating on the ice? absolutely.

And I think the best way around this is really through IT, through IT in this election win by a landslide and a unifying lens like be the best thing that happens for this country like regan belive red in one thousand nine hundred eighty and then again in one thousand nine hundred eighty four, and in a very practical, not a landslide minus sum shenanigans, is still going to be a Victory that I think is how we unite this country. And so I don't think, you know, fifty point zero zero one margin where cable news is declaring the winner six days after the election, I don't think that's going to be good for the country. I think a decisive Victory, that s the country turns the page on a lot of the chAllenge of the last four years and says, okay, this is where we're going.

This is who we are, what we stand for. This is a revival of our national identity and revive national pride in the united states, regardless of what the democrat or republican that I think is achievable in this election, too. And that's what the outcome i'm rooting for.

So just the pile on since were still men in the criticism against trumps the reti C I wish there was less of although at times IT is so ridiculous IT is entertaining the I hate Taylor swift type of tweet or truths, whatever. I I don't .

think that is only guy. I mean, the reality is different people have different attributes. The one of the attributes of Donald d jump is he's one of the funnier presidents we've had a long time that might not be everybody's cup ty.

Maybe different people don't want. That's not a quality of value in their president. I think get a moment where you're also able to make I will say this much is everybody got different styles, delt truck styles different from mine.

But I do think that if you're able to use levity in a moment of national division in in some ways, I think right now is probably a role or really good stand up comedians could probably do a big service to the country if they're able to laugh at everybody three hundred and sixty degrees. So they go there, make for a dollar trump all they want, do in the light hearted and matter that loves the country, do the same thing to come on, Harrison, with an equal standard. I think that's actually good for the country.

But I think i'm more interested legs, as you know, in discussing the future direction of the country, my own views. I was a presidential candidate who ran against truck, by the way, supporting him now. But I just prefer engaging on the substance of what I think each canada is going to achieve her to the country, rather than picking on really the personal attributes of either one, right? I'm not criticizing combo herr's manner of laughter, whatever you know, one my criticizes like a personal attribute of hers that you may hear elsewhere.

And I just think our countries is Better off if we have a focus on both the policies but also who's going to be more likely to revive the country that I think is a healthy debate, added an election. I think everybody has their personality attributes, their flaws. What makes them funny and lovable to some people makes them irritating others. I think that that matters less heading into an election.

I love that you do that. I love that you focus on policy and can speak for hours on policy as, look, a foreign policy. What kind of peace deal do think is possible, feasible, optimal in ukraine? If you SAT down, you became president. If you said Donald alone, skin said, download tin, what do you think is possible to talk to them about one of the hilarious things you did, which were intense and entertaining your debates in the primary? Y but anyway, how you grow the other candidate that did not any regions, they wanted to send money in troops and lead to the depth of hundreds of thousands of people, and they didn't know any of the regions in ukraine had a lot of in that one. But anyway, how do you think about negotiating with world leaders about what's gone on there?

yes. So look, I think that this is get the self interests of each party on the table. And to be very transparent about IT from everyone's perspective, you know, they think the other side is the aggressor or whatever, just get IT on the table.

Russia is concerned about nato shifting the baLance of power away from to western europe, when nato has expanded far more than they expected to. And Frankly, that rush was told that native was going to expand. An uncomfortable fact for some in america.

But James Baker made a commitment to make a gorbio in the early nineties, where he said native would expand, not one in the past. These germany, well, IT is extended far more after the fall, the U. S.

S. R, than I did during the existence of the U. S.

S. R. And that is a reality. We have to contend with that. The russian perspective, from the western perspective, the heart factors, russia was the aggressor in this conflict, crossing the boundaries, a vn nation.

And that is a violation of international norms, and it's a violation of the recognition. International of nations without borders are not a nation. And so against that backdrop, what's the actual interest of each country here?

I think if we're able to do a reasonable deal that gives russia the assurances IT needs about what they might alleges native expansion is violating product commitments but get qualified commitments for russia that we're not going to see William nearly behavior of just randomly deciding that going to violate the sovereign of neighboring nations and have hard assurances and consequences for that. That's the beginning of a deal. But then I want to be ambitious for the united states.

I want to weaken the russia china alliance, and I think that we can do a deal that requires that give some real gives to russia, conditioned on russia withdrawing itself from its military lines with china. And this could be good for russia, too, in the long rank, because right now, lot of important is not enjoy being shean ping's little brother in that relationship, but russia's military, combined with china's naval capacity and russia's hyperrational onic missiles and china's economic might, together, those countries in an alliance posed real threat to the united states. But if, as a condition for a reasonable discussion about where different territories land, given what's occupied right now, hard requirements, that russia remove its military presence from the western hemisphere, people forget this, cuba, venezuela, nick aragua, we don't want to a russian military presence in the western hemisphere here.

That two would be a win for the united states. No more joint military exercises with china off the coast of the illusions islands, the kinds of winds that the united states wants to protect the west security, get rush out of the western hemisphere here, certainly out of the north american periphery, and then also make sure that rushes no longer in that military lines in china. In return for that able to provide russia some things that are important to russia, we'd have have a reason, reasonable discussion about what the territorial concessions would be at the end of ward, bring IT to peace and resolution, and what the guarantees are to make sure that nato's going to not expand beyond the scope of what the united states is, at least historically guaranteed. That I think together would be a reasonable deal that gives every party what they're looking for, that results in immediate peace, that results in greater stability and most importantly, weakening the russia china alliance, which I think is the actual thread that we have so far. No matter who in this debate, more or less, ukrainean funding has really failed to confront that, I think is the way we escalate the risk world, world three, and weaken the threats to the west by actually demanding that alliance.

So from the uh, american perspective, the main interests is weakening the alliance between russia and china.

Yes, I think the military lines between russia and china represents the single greatest threat we face. So do a deal that very reasonable across the board. But one of the main things we get out of IT is weakening the alliance.

So no joint military exercises, no military collaborations. These are monitoring. These are monitoring attributes. If there's cheating on that, we're going to immediately have consequences as a consequences. They are cheating, but we can't cheat on, you know, our own obligations that we would make in the context of that deal as well.

There might be some extremely painful things for ukraine. E here. So ukraine currently captured a small region in russia, the conclusion, but russia has captured giant chunks then yes, can support or her son regions. So IT seems, given what you're laying out, is very unlikely for russia to give up any other regions ready captured.

I actually think that, that would come out the specifics of the negotiation, but the core goals of the negotiation are peace in this war weakened the russia china alliance and for russia, where do they get out of IT? Part of this is here's something is not negative for ukraine, but that could be positive for russia is part of that deal, right? Because it's it's not a zero some game alone with ukraine on the losing end of this.

I think reopening economic relations with the would be a big win for russia, but also a carrot that gets them out of that military relationship with china. So I do think that the form policy establishment has historically been, at the very least, unit maginness about the levers that were able to use. Actually, I was liba critical of nicks on earlier in this discussion for his contribution of the overgrowth of the U.

S. Entitlement state in regulatory state. But i'll give next increment IT here on a different point, which is that he was imaginative of being able to pull, read to china out from the clasp of the U. S. S. R.

He broke the china russia hans back then, which is an important step to bring us to the near end of the cold war, is not opportunity for a similar unconventional in maneuvre now of using greater reopen economic relations with russia to pull, rush out from the hands of china today. There's no skin off ukraine's back for that. And I do think gets a big carrot for russia in this direction.

I do think that will involve some level of territorial negotiation as well that you know, out of any good deal. Not everyone gonna like a hundred percent of what comes out of IT, but that's part of the cost of securing pieces that not everything going to be happy about every attribute. But I could make a case that a an immediate peace deal is also now in the best interests of ukraine.

Let's just rewind in the clock we're looking at now. Let's just say we're early twenty twenty two, maybe june of twenty twenty two, is the landscape to come to the table for a deal back then until boris Johnson traveled when he had his own domestic political travels to convince olenski's to continue to fight. And that goes to the point where when nations aren't asked to pay for their own national security, they have what the problem is, a moral hazard of taking risks that really a sub optimal risks for them to take because they're not bearing the consequences of taking those risks, not fully in the cost.

If ukraine had done a deal back then, I think IT is unambiguous that they would have done a Better deal for themselves then they're doing now after having spent hundreds of billions of dollars and expanded tens of thousands of ukrainian lives. So the idea that ukrainian somehow Better off because IT failed to do that deal before is a lie. And if we're not willing to learn from those mistakes of the recent past, were doomed to repeat them again.

So this idea that IT would be painful for ukraine, you know, been painful. Tens and tens and tens of thousands of people continue to die without any increased leverage and actually getting the outcome that they want. So I think there's an opportunity for a win, win, win.

A win for the united states in the west more broadly in weakening in the russia china lions. A win for ukraine in having an agreement that is back stopped by the united states of america's interests that provides a greater degree of long run security to the future existence of ukraine and its sovereign, and also stopping the bloodshed today. And I think win for russia, which is reopen economic relations with the west and have certain guarantees about what the mission creeper scope creep of nato will be. There's no rule that says that when one party before before full out right world war starts, at least there's an opportunity for there to actually be a win for everybody on the table rather than to assume that a win for us is a loss to russia or that anything positive that happens for russia is a loss for the united states of ukrainian.

Just to add to the table, some things that couldn't, won't like, but I think are possible to negotiate, which is ukraine joining the european union and not nature. So establishing some kind of economic relationships there and also splitting the bill, sort of guaranteeing summer mountain of money from both the russia and in the united states for rebuilding ukraine. One of the chAllenges in ukraine, a torn country, is how do you guarantee the flourishing of this particular ation? I see you wanted not just stop the death of people in the destruction, but also provide a foundation on which you can rebuild the country and build a flourishing future country.

I think out of this conversation alone, there are a number of levers on the table for negotiation in a lot of different directions. And that's where you want to be, right? If there's only one factor that matters to each of the two parties and those are their red line factors, then there's no room for negotiation.

This is a, this is a deeply complicated, historically intricate dynamic between ukraine and russia and between nato in the united states and the russia china alliance and economic interests that are issue. Combined with the geopolitical factors, there are a lot of levers for negotiation. And the more lovers there are, the more likely there is to be a win and win deal.

They get done for everybody. So I think IT should be encouraging. The fact that there are as many different possible levels here almost makes certain that a reasonable practicable peace deal as possible. In contrast, the situation where there's only one thing that matters for each side, and I can tell you that there's a deal to be done, there's definitely deal to be done here.

And I think that IT requires real leadership in the united states playing hard ball, not just with one side of this, not just with the in sy with putin, but across the board. Hard ball for our own interests, which are the interests of of stability here. And I think that that will happen to will serve both ukraine and in russia in the process.

If you were president, would you call putin?

absolutely. I mean, in any negotiation, you ve got to manage when you're calling somebody and when you're not. But I do believe the open conversation in the willingness to have that as another lever in the negotiation is told for your game.

Okay, let's go to the chinese side of this. The big concern here is the the brewing colder got forbid hot war between the nine days in china in the twenty first century. How do we avoid that?

So a few things. One is, I do think the best way we also avoided is by reducing the consequences to the united states in the event of that type of conflict. Because at that point, what you're setting up for of the consequences are existential for the united states.

Then what you're buying yourself in the context of what could be a small conflict is, in all out, great war. So the first thing I want to make sure we avoid as a major conflict between the united states in china, like our world war level conflict, and the way to do that is to bring down the existential stakes for the us. And the way we bring down the existential stakes for the us is make sure that the united states does not depend on china for our modern way of life.

Right now we do, because right now we depend on china for everything from pharmaceuticals. In our medicine cabinet, ninety five percent of ib profit, one of the most basic medicines using the states depends on china for its supply chain, which depends on china, ironically, for our own military industrial base. Think about how little sense that makes actually our own military, which supposedly exist to predict yourself against adversities depends for its own supplies, semiconductors, otherwise, on our top adversary.

That doesn't make sense, even if you're a liberator on the school of fridge guanhua, somebody I admire his. Well, hl, even then you would not argue for a foreign dependence on adversary for your military. So I think that's the next step we need to take, is at least reduce us dependence on china for the most essential inputs for the functioning of the united states of america, including our own military.

As a side, I believe that means not just ensuring to the united states IT does, but if we really serious about that, IT also means expanding our relationships with allies like japan, south korea, india, the Philippines. And that's an interesting debate to have, cause some on the right would say, OK, I want to dee cup from china, but I also want less trade with all these other places. You can have both those things at the same time.

You can have one of the other. You can have both. And so we have technology and honest with ourselves that there are trade, ffs, to declaring independence from china. But the question is, what are the long run benefits? Now you think about other way to do this is, is strategic clarity.

I think the way that you see world wars often emerge is strategic ambiguity from to adversity, who don't really know what the other side's red line is raised and accidentally acco ssed those red lines. And I think we need to be much clearer with what are our hard red lines and what aren't they. And I think that is the single most effective way to make sure this doesn't spiral into major world war and then stuck about ending the russia in ukraine conflict in the term that I just discuss to you before.

I think weakening the russia china alliance not only reduces the rise that russia becomes an aggressor IT, also reduces the risk that china takes, the risk that could escalate us two world, world three as well. So I think that geopolitically, you got to look at these things holistically. That ended the russia ukraine war in that P O D S scala's not only the russia ukraine conflict, but the risk of a broader conflict that includes china as well, but also weaken in china because russia also as hypersonic ic missiles and missile capabilities that ahead of that of china's if rush is no longer in military lines with china, that changes calculus as well.

So that kind of, I think, more strategic vision we need in our foreign icy than we've had since, certainly, you know, the nixon era. I think that you need people who are going to be able to chAllenge the status quo, question the existing orthodoxies, the willingness to use levers to get great deals done that others SE wouldn't have gotten done. And as I do think someone like gonna trump in the presidency in obviously and for president, is now sider and a businessman as well. I think this is an area, our foreign icy one, where we actually benefit from having business leaders in those rules rather than people who are shackled by the traditional political manner of thinking.

I think the thing you didn't quite make clear, what I think implied is that we have to accept the red line that china provides of, of the one china policy.

Both sides need to have the red lines. Both sides need to have the red lines. So you know, we can get in the specifics, but it's is going very depending on the circumstances. But the principle that I would give you is we have to have a hard red line that's clear. I think that, that hard red line, I was cleared to my campaign, this all say again, I think that we have have a clear red line that china will not and should not for any time in the first summer future anees cho, taiwan.

I do think that for the united states is probably is prudent right now not to suddenly upend the diplomatic policy we've adopted for decades of what is recognizing the one one china policy in our position of quite difference to that and understand that may be the red line is the national recognition of taiwan as an independent would be a red line that china would have. But we would have a red line to say that we do not, in any circumstances, leratong the anx ation by physical force in any time in the foreseeable future, when that's against the interested the united states of america. So that there's examples.

But the principle here is, U. S. How do we avoid major conflict with china? I think IT starts with clear red lines on both sides. I think IT starts with also lowering the stakes for the united states by making sure we're not dependent on china for our modern way of life. I think IT also starts with, ironically, using a peaceful resolution to the ukraine war as a way of weakening the russia china lions, which, in the other direction of weakening china has significant benefits us as well.

But what you do when china says, very politely, we're going to annex taiwan.

whether you like IT or inst. The backdrop that I just laid out that I going to happen, that wouldn't happen if we actually make sure that we are cryo clear about what our red lines and priorities are. We also depend on, on taiwan right now for our own in semiconductor supply chain.

So china knows that's going to draw into serious conflict in that circumstance. So against the background of clearly drawn red lines, against the backdrop of russia no longer automatically being in china's camp, that's a big ever, I think also strengthening our relationship with other allies where we have room to strengthen those relationships like india. And i'm not just saying that, you know, because my name is the vacuum a song, right?

I'm saying that because it's strategically important to the united states to understand that got forbids a conflict scenario, china would perceive some risk to the indian ocean or the end and sea no longer being reliable for getting middle of and oil supplies. There's a lot of levers here, but I think that if we are both straggly, clear with our allies and with our adversary about water, red lines are water priorities, are reasonable deals that pulled rush out of the hands of china and vice reasonable allies and relationships that cause china to question whether they can continue to have the same access to middle of royal supplies as IT does today. And then clear red lines with china itself about what we definitely aren't OK with and understand that they may have certain red lines to.

That allows us, I think, to still avoid what many people will call the unavoidable conflict, the facilities es trap, against the circumstances of when when there's a ising power, against the backdrop of the declining power, conflict always becomes inevitable. That's a theory. It's not a law physics.

And I don't think that a we have to be a declining power. Nb, I don't think that that has to necessarily result in major conflict with china. Here you can require a real leadership leaders with the spine. And you don't have to judge based on international relations theory, to form your view on this. Four years under trump, we didn't have major conflicts in the release in place like russia, ukraine.

We were on the cusp of war with north korea when obama left office and trumpet to over four years underbit and less than four years underbit in Harris, what you have, major conflicts in middle east, major conflict in russia, ukraine. Judge by the results. And you know, I mean, I would say that even if you somebody who disagrees with a lot of downal trump s and you don't like a style, if you're single issues, you want to stand a world war three, I think is a pretty clear case for why you go for trump in this .

election so prime minister mody, I think you've complimented ment in a lot of different directions, one of which is only in discussing nationales.

Yeah, I think I believe that someone i've got to know actually recently, well, for example, recently, is georgia miloni, who is leader. Ital told the same thing. One of things I love about her as a leader, vitally, is that he does not apologize for the national entity of the country and that he stands for certain values uncompromisingly and SHE doesn't give a second care about what the media has to say about IT.

One of things I love, last time I spoke to her when he was in the us, when we set down, was he talked about she's even read the newspaper SHE, doesn't read and watch the media, and allows her to make decisions that are best for the people. And there are elements of that in movies approach as well, which I respect about him, as he doesn't apologize for the fact that india has an national identity and that the nation should be proud of IT. But i'm not saying that because i'm proud of miloni for or motive for their own countries on american.

I think there are lessons to learn from leaders who are proud of their own nation's identity rather than apologizing for IT and I think it's a big part of why I ran for president on a campaign center of national pride is also why um not only voting for but actively supporting downal trump because I do think he's going to be the one that restores that missing national pride in the united states and touch on this as well in the book there's a chapter here is a nationalism isn't a bad word. I think nationalism can be a very positive thing if it's grounded in the actual true attributes of the nation and in the united states. That doesn't mean f no nationalism, because that was not what the national identity of the united states was based on in the first place, but a civic nationalism grounded in our actual national ideals.

That is who we are. And I think that that is something that we've gotten uncomfortable with in the countries to say that I am proud of being american and I believe in american exceptionalism somehow. That's looking down on others.

No, not looking down on anybody. But I am proud of my own country. And I think most revived that spirit in india, a way that was missing for a long time, right? India had an inferiority complex, psychological inferiority complex.

But now to be proud of its national heritage and its national myth making and its national legacy and history, and to say that, you know, every nation does have to have a kind of myth making about its past, and to be proud of that, it's like now comes, actually said this here in the united states is in a nation without an appreciation for its history, is like a tree without roots. It's dead. And I think that that's true not just for the next states, I think is true for every other nation. I think leaders like miloni in ita, leaders like more in india, have done a great job that I wish to bring that type of pride back in the united states. And and whatever I do next, like i'll say this, is I think reviving that sense of identity and pride, especially in the next generation, is one of the most important things we can do for this country.

Speaking of what you do next, any chance you run the twenty twenty eight?

I'm not going rule IT out. I mean, that's a long time from now and a most focused on what I can do in the next chapter for the country I ran for president million things that I learned from that experience that you can only learn by doing IT IT was very much a fire first, aim later with getting into the race. There was no way I could have planned and flaught ted this out of somebody who was coming from the outside.

I was thirty seven years old, came from the business world. So there was a lot that only could learn by actually doing IT, and I did. But I care about the same things that LED me into the presidential race.

And I don't think the issues have been solved. I think that we have a generation that is lost in the country is not just Young people. I think it's all of us, in some ways, are hungry for purpose and meaning at a time in our history when the things that used to fill that void in our heart they're missing.

And I think we need a president who both has the right policies for the country, seal the border of the economy, stand a world, world three and rampant crime. Yes, we need to write policies, but we also need leaders who, in a sustained way, revive our national character, revive our since of pride in this kind, revive our identity as americans. And, you know, I think that that need exists as much today as I did when I first ran for president.

I don't think it's going to be automatically solved in just a few years at the gandalf. Trump is the right person to Carry that banner forward for the next four years. But after that, we will see where the country has had in twenty twenty eight.

And whatever I do, IT will be whatever has a maximum positive impact on the country. I'll also tell you that my laser focus, maybe as distinct from other politicians on both sides, is to take amErica to the next level, to move beyond our victim hood culture, to restore our culture of excEllence. We ve got to shut down that any state, the entitlement state, the regulatory state, the foreign policy in any state, shut IT down and revive who we really are as americans.

And i'm most passionate about that is ever. But the next step is not running for president. The next step is what happens in the next, next four years. And that's why over the next four weeks, i'm focused on doing whatever I can to make sure .

we succeed in this selection. Well, I hope you run because this was made clear on the stage in the primary debates. You have a unique clarity and honesty in expressing the ideas you stand for. And IT would be nice to see that. I would also like to see the same thing on the other side, which would make for some bad as interesting debates.

I would love nothing more than a kick asset of top to democrat candidates. After four years of Donald trump, we have a primary filled with, actually, people who have real visions for the country on both sides. And the people of this country can choose between these competing visions without insulted injury being the way. I would love nothing more than to see that one.

Who do you think? So for me, I would love to see in some kind of future where it's universe, somebody like tim walls, so tim ls may be on lacking a knowledge is a first like a good dude has similar to you strongly held, if not radical, ideas of how to make progress in this country. So to just beyond stage in debate, honestly, about the ideas they are like very attention between those ideas um is there other .

people shop is interesting also I would like to take on in in earnest in civil but contested context, right of a debate. Who do you want to take? You want on somebody who disagrees with you, but still has deep ideology of their own.

I think john fetterman prety interesting, right? He's demonstrated himself to be somebody who is thoughtful, able to change his mind on positions, but not in some sort of fake flip flop fu, pretty flappy way, but in in a thoughtful evolution, somebody he's been through personal struggles, somebody I deeply disagree with on a lot of his, on a lot of his views, most of his views, but who are going at least say, comes across at least to somebody who has been through that tortuous process of really examining your beliefs and convictions and has, when necessary, been able to reach his own tribe where he thinks they're wrong. And it's interesting, I think, that you have in a number of other leaders probably emerging at lower levels on left, not everybody's going to necessarily come from washington, dc.

In fact, the longer there there are, the more day in some ways get polluted by IT. I think the governor of colorado is interesting. Guy is got a moral liberator and tendency. No, I don't know as much about his views on from a national perspective, but it's intriguing to see somebody who has at least libertarian freedom morine intendencia within the democratic party.

I think there are a number of, you know me I don't for seen running for president, but had a debate last year when I was looking for president with roca, who say, what about is a highly intelligent person and is somebody who is at least willing the book, the consensus of his party when necessary? I think he recently, I would say last bus that h Epaced I T v ery d elicately, but criticized como heroes proposed tax on unrealized capital gains. So I like people who are willing to chAllenge the orthodoxy, is in their own party because he says they actually have convictions.

And wherever the democrats put up, I hope someone like that. And and for my part, I will I have and continue to have beliefs that will chAllenge republicans that on the face of IT may not be the policies that pull on paper as the policies you're supposed to adopt a republican, canada. But what a true leader does doesn't just tell people what they want to hear.

You tell people what they need to hear and you tell people you're actual convictions are in this idea that I don't want to create a right wing entitlement state or in any state I want to shut down that chAllenges the precise positions of a lot of the conservative movement is right now. I don't think the bill to cap credit card interest rates is a good thing because that's a Price control. Just here is Price controls, and i'll reduce access to credit.

I don't think that we want a crony capital state showering private benefits on selected industries that favor us or that we want to expand the c fpb or the ftc remit. And somehow we're going to trust IT because it's under our watch. No, I believe in shutting IT down the chAllenges. A lot of the current director of the consumer of movement, I believe in certain issues that, you know, maybe you an outside the scope of what republicans currently care about right now. One of things that I oppose for examples, this is not a top ish an american politics.

But just to give you a sense for how I think can view the world, i'm against factory farming of a large scale of you know you you could sort of say putting a you know the the first treatment of it's one thing to say that you need IT for for your sustainable and that's great. But it's another to say that you have to do IT in a factory farming setting that gives special exemptions from historical laws that have existed that are the product of chronic capitalism. And against chronic capitalism forms, i'm against the influence of mega money in politics.

I don't think that's been good either for democrats or republicans. Some of those views, I think, are not necessarily the traditional republican right. You know orthodoxy reading chapter and verse from what the revolving an party platform has been a sn against the republican party platform. But it's asking what the future of our movement is.

Some of these things are hard, like getting money on the politics.

getting mega money, getting mega.

mega money. Yeah, ah, yeah. And so long as IT exist.

you ve got to play the game. I mean, you got, if you going to play to win. I think one of things I realized is that you just can't compete without IT, but you want to win the game in order to change the game. And I think that, that something that I keep, keep in mind as well. So you have .

written a lot. You're specifically productive. But even just looking books wise, you're basically booky year for last four years when you're writing when you're thinking about how to solve the problems of the world to develop your policy, how do you think.

I need quiet time, extended periods of IT that are separated from the rush of the data day or the travel. Actually think a lot Better when i'm working out and physically active. So from running, playing tennis, lifting, somehow for me, that really opens up my mind.

And then I need to a significant amount time after that, with a notebook. Here they Carry around a notebook everywhere I go and write IT. Down in there is the .

no book full of chaotic s thoughts. Or the structure is sometimes is chaotic .

s sometimes the structure is a little bit above, sometimes I have thought that I know I don't want to forget later, immediately dropped IT down, other times on flight over here ahead, a much more structured layout of got a lot of for projects in the air, for example, and across pollinate and one in the shower this morning, kind of bunch of thoughts collected those on my plane ride over here.

So I think that writing is something in all of its forms that helps me. It's one of the one of them exactly helped me this year was actually writing this book. You're going through a presidential campaigns are going at super speed.

And if I was to do the presidential campaign again, the thing I would do is actually to take more structured breaks. I don't mean brakes isn't just like vacations, but I mean breaks to reflect on what's actually happening. Probably the biggest mistake I made is last time around heading into the first debate, I was like a nine different states over seven days.

I would just taken that as a pause, right? Were the hallway through you've established relevance? Now make sure the country sees who you actually are in full rather than just the momentum competitive driven version of you.

And I just think that that sort of those taking those moments to just take stock of where you are do some writing. I didn't do much writing during the presidential campaign. I enjoy writing as part of how I center myself.

It's part of what this book allowed me to do is okay. I ran that world wind of a campaign. The first thing I started doing after I collected myself for a couple of weeks was take the pen and start writing.

And I was committed to writing that book, whether or not anybody read IT, I was just writing IT for myself. And I actually started in a very different form. He was very personal reflections ary.

It's most of that funy enough. I've learned about writing the book's legs is he just didn't end up in the book because direction then like, interesting for a publisher to publish. And so for each of my books, the things that I started writing ended up never in the book anyway, just because the topic ended up more thing.

But the journey that LED me to write this, but a lot of IT in this book is still in there. My fourth book in four years, you're write, and I hope it's the most important one. But IT is certainly the product of an honest reflection that whatever you might do for the reader, IT helped me to write IT.

And I think that's one of the things that I learned from this campaign is not just all the policy lessons, but even just as a matter of personal practice, the ability to take spaces of time to not only physically chAllenge ourself, work out it's a, but to give yourself the space reflect, to recenter yourself on the way. Had I done that, I think I would have been even more centered on the mission the whole time, rather than, you know, you get attacked on the way you're thrown off your title or thrown off your baLance. IT becomes a lot of harder for someone else to do that to you. If you've really centered yourself, fine your own purpose.

One of my biggest learnings. So you've mentioned the first primary debate. So more than Normal, basically, anybody have ever seen you stop into some really intense debates ah and your park but in your kind of in all kinds of walks of life where there's of debates with sort of protesters or debates with people that really disagree with you like the radical opposite of you. Um what's the what's the philosophy behind that and what's the psychology being able to be calm through all of that which you seem to be?

I I enjoy debate and for me I think he just an ordinary life. Forget about like a formal debate setting.

Whenever i've received criticism, country review, my first impulse is always, are they right? It's always possibility, right? And most of the time what happens is you understand the other size argument, but you emerge with a stronger conviction in your own belief, right? You know your own beliefs Better if you can state the best argument for the other side, but sometimes you do change your mind.

And I think that that's happened over the course of my life as well. I think no one's at thinking human being unless that happens once in a while too. Anyway, just the idea of the pursuit of truth through open debate and inquiry.

That's always just been part of my identity, part of who I am, am wired that way. I thrive on IT. I enjoy IT. Even my relationships with my closest friends are built around heated debates and deep seated agreement and disagreement.

And he actually get beautiful, not just about human relationships, but it's particularly beautiful about america, right? Because it's part of the culture of this country, more so than, you know, other countries in china, india know. Asian cultures, even about eupeptic lt.

Res, are very different. With that considered, not gentile behavior is not the respectful behavior. Whether for us in a part of what makes this country great is you can disagree like hell and still get together at the dinner table at the end event.

I think we've lost some of that, but i'm on a bit of a mission to bring that back. And so I know whether this in politics or not. I'm committed in the next step, whatever the path is over the next four years. One of the things i'm committed to doing is making sure that I go out of my way to talk to people who actually disagree with me. And I think it's a big part of how we going to save our country.

Are they right as a thing? I actually literally see you do so you are listening to. You have a person .

for my own benefit, to be honest.

selfish. You also don't lose your shit so you don't take IT personally. You don't get emotional.

If you get emotional sort of in a positive way, you get passionate, but you don't get IT doesn't. I've never seen you broken. You like to where they do. They get you like outraged. It's always probably because you just love the heat.

I love the heat and am a curious person yeah so i'm kind of i'm always curious about what's actually getting the other what's motivating the person on the other side. That curiosity, I think, is actually the best antidote, right? If you have just try to stay calm in the face of somebody attacking you that that's kind of fake.

But if you're kind of curious about them, right? I did genuinely just wondering any most people are good people inherently were, well, maybe get misguided from time to time, but what's actually what is IT that moving that person to go in such a different direction than you? I think as long as you're curious about that, you know, mean the climate change protesters that have erupted my events.

I'm as fascinated by the psychology of what's moving them and what they might be hungry for as I am concerned about rebutting the content of what they're saying to me. And I think that that's certainly something I care to revive. We don't talk about in politics that much, but reviving that sense of curiosity, I think, is in in a certain way, one of the ways we are going to be able to disagree, but still remain friends and fellow citizens at the end of IT.

I agree with you. I think fundamentally, most people are good. And one of things I love most about humans is the very thing you said, which is curiosity. I think we should lean into .

that you're curious person know this podcast is basically born of your curiosity, i'm sure. And so I just think we need more of that america, that kind of we are going to talk about fountain thers, we are joking about IT. But their inventors, they were writers, they were political theorists, they were founders of a nation.

They kind of had that boundless curiosity, too. And part of what happened culturally, in the countries we've gotten to display, where we've been told that senior lane, you know you don't have an expert degree in that, therefore, you can't have an opinion about IT. I don't know.

I think that's not a little bit on american and in terms of the culture of IT and yeah, one things I like about you and know I was looking for to this conversation too is IT could have intellectual interest that span sports to culture, to politics, to philosophy. And it's not like you just have to be an expert train in one of those things to be engaging IT. But actually maybe just maybe you might even be Better and each of those things because you're curious about the other the renaissance man, if you will.

I think we've lost a little bit of that, that concept in america, but it's certainly something that is important to me. And this year, it's been kind of cool. I leave you in the campaign i've been doing.

I've been done a wide ranging of things, right? Have been picking up my tennis game again. I practice .

to the high state.

You're damn good at tennis. I used, used to be .

Better in body. I was trying correctly. I think I think you shot a very particular angle of that video. I think they were criticizing your back hand was weak potentially because .

you that would be fair criticism. But it's got Better again, it's got Better recently. I've been playing with the i'm practicing with the ohio st.

State team in the morning. They are like number one in the country. You're close to IT.

Now the guy is on the team play, but there's a couple of coaches who were recently on the team, one of whom used to be a guys to play with the juniors who invited me out. I hate IT with them in the mornings alongside the team. My goal, I I be, I be, I should be careful here.

Oh no, my my hip store. I tell us playing so many days before that, I I set a goal for myself by the end of to play a particular tournament. But we'll see if that happens or but regardless, I ve been fun to get back into tennis.

I I was an executive production in a movie, something never, never done before. Scott, city of dreams. It's about a story of a Young man who was traffic into the united states, the thrill.

Er, it's very good movie to be a part of. I have actually started a couple of companies, one company in particular. That I think is going to be significant this year, guiding some of the other businesses that I ve got off the ground in the past. So for me, I am reenergize now where I was imposed in the think of politics for a full year there, and getting a little bit oxygen outside of politics. Doing some things in the private sector has actually given me a renewed sense of of energy to know, get back into driving change to public service.

Well, has been a fun watching the door, all these fascinating things. But I do hope that you have a future in politics as well as it's nice to have somebody that has rigorously developed their ideas in his honest about presenting them and is a willing to debate those ideas out in public space. So I would love for you and people like you to represent the future american politics so well. Thank you so much. For every time I slipping in this Cherry .

take of .

Thomas jeffrey goal so big, shut out of Thomas .

jeffson. Where do you cut this? Of course, he said he wrote sixteen thousand s yeah, in his life letters, right? So I read four books in four years. That is nothing compared to know how prolific this guy. Anyway, that man, thanks for me.

And neither of us will ever live up to anything close to Thomas jeffson.

I love your curiosity, man. Thanks for in reading the book and appreciate your feedback on IT as well. Hopefully.

we will do this again sometime. Yes, thank you, brother. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with the vector, a swarm. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words from George. Well, political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.