Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/25/23 EXCLUSIVE: Vivek Ramaswamy PRESSED On Trump, Climate, Mexico War, and Krystal And Saagar SPAR With 2024 Candidate Doug Burgum

Episode Date: July 25, 2023

Krystal and Saagar bring you two exclusive interviews with GOP Presidential candidates Vivek Ramaswamy and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The OGs of uncensored motherhood are back and badder than ever. I'm Erica.

And I'm Mila. And we're the hosts of the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast, brought to you by the Black Effect Podcast Network every Wednesday. Yeah, we're moms, but not your mommy. Historically, men talk too much. And women have quietly listened. And all that stops here. If you like witty women, then this is your tribe. Listen to the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday on the Black Effect Podcast Network, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you go to find your podcast.

I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute season one Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Joining us now is entrepreneur and presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Vivek, welcome to the

show. It's good to see you. Yeah, very glad to have you. Good to see you guys. All right, so make your pitch. Why you instead of the guy that was there last time, Donald Trump? So I see the rest of the GOP field. They are running from something. I'm the person in this race who is leading us to something, to our vision of what it actually means to be an American. We're in the middle of a national identity crisis in our country. Faith, patriotism, hard work, family, these things have disappeared. And I think that leaves a moral vacuum in its wake, a black hole. And when you have a black hole that runs that deep, that is when the poison fills the void. And I think we in the GOP and in the

conservative movement often obsess over the poison, wokeism, transgenderism, climatism, COVIDism, globalism, you name it. I view it, these symptoms are just symptoms of a deeper underlying void of purpose and meaning. And I think I'm in the candidate in this race who's actually offering an affirmative vision as opposed to just saying that we're not doing what the left is doing. No, individual, family, nation, God. These are the things that ground us. I think we should talk about them in the open. And I think that's why we're having success early on.

Vivek, there's been discussions in recent days around your book about January 6th, especially given concurrent potential pending indictments against the former president. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. In your book, you wrote, quote, the loser of the last election refused to concede the race and claim the election was stolen, raised hundreds of millions of dollars from loyal supporters is considering running for executive office. Again, I'm referring to Donald Trump. Do you still believe that Trump actually lost the election and that January 6th was a dark day for democracy?

I was in detail in both of my books and articles, and I've been very consistent about this throughout. I have seen no evidence, it's exactly what I said in Nation of Victims, and I haven't seen the evidence since, that there was a scale of ballot fraud that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. I've also said in that same book and ever since that the real way the election was in a narrow sense stolen was the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story on the eve of the election. I'm data driven. The data is compelling, including 360 degree polling data that said people would have changed their vote had they

been exposed to information that was systematically suppressed. So that's my view. It was big tech interference was the problem. I haven't seen any evidence of systematic ballot fraud being the basis for a difference in result. But most importantly, I think a lot of these factors did lead to and culminate in what happened on January 6th, systematic suppression of information. And I think until we have reconciled ourselves with that reality, I'm afraid we're going to see much worse in the future. That is why I'm in this race, to speak the truth and to lead us to something so that we can actually be one nation rather than on our march to a national divorce.

And I think I'm better positioned to lead that nation forward than Donald Trump or anybody else in this Republican field. So one reason that we're asked in some of these questions is because we are expecting indictments with regard to January 6th for President Trump as soon as today,

but potentially this week. You've said in the past that you would pardon former President Trump if you are yourself elected president of the United States. I mean, is that hard and fast, or is your mind open to change

if there was some new evidence that was presented that you aren't aware of, or you just, you're locked in, you're gonna pardon him, and it really doesn't matter what comes out? No, I'm data-driven. On the first two indictments, I read them completely before making my statement

that I would pardon Trump both for the most recent documents case, which for reasons I've laid out elsewhere, we can go into it, I think is absolutely politically motivated, is absolutely a national disaster if this proceeds to a conviction. I think it was a disaster that it proceeded to an indictment. Yes, I would pardon him for that. And I would also pardon him for the New York case. And yes, I know, state law, federal law, I've made an argument on the pages of the Wall Street Journal as to why the president can pardon him for that crime as well. Based on what I know, I would absolutely pardon him for the alleged offenses underlying a potential January 6th indictment. I think that

would be a national disaster as well, potentially even more dangerous than the other two because of section three of the 14th amendment. This one could actually disqualify him from holding office. And I say this as somebody who's now polling third in the Republican field. It would be easier for me if Donald Trump were not in this race. But that is not the way I want to win this election. I think that we should not become a country where the party in power uses police force to indict and eliminate its political opposition. That's not the way we do things in this country. I want to get clarity on your position. So on the documents case in particular, first of all, I want to ask you, you know, given what we know and he deserves his day in court, et cetera, but looks pretty clear. He held on to a bunch of very classified

material. When he started getting calls from the government and from law enforcement saying, hey, you know, we know you've got some things. Will you cooperate with us? According to what's been presented so far, it looks like not only did he not cooperate, that he, you know, moved some boxes around and tried to conceal exactly what he had. Don't you think that a private citizen that engaged in those types of activities, wouldn't they also be indicted and probably given a lot less grace and a lot fewer second chances than former President Trump was in this instance? So I tracked the facts against the law.

And one critical feature, Crystal, is that this was the former president of the United States. And there is a statute that covers former presidents of the United States and how they relate to both classified and unclassified documents. That's the Presidential Records Act. That came after the act under which he was indicted, which I think is one of the most un-American statutes, the Espionage Act. And I wrote an extensive piece in the Wall Street Journal about why I would repeal that act. It's been abused for most of our national history. I think

it was abused here. So the Presidential Records Act makes clear what access a president of the United States has to at least unclassified documents. On the theory that he's being prosecuted against, actually the Espionage Act does not distinguish between classified or unclassified documents. Correct. Which means that there's a strong legal argument that the Presidential Records Act

supersedes the Espionage Act as it relates to presidents who touch bat, who deal with classified or unclassified documents. So your issue is in- And so I believe in tracking the law very carefully. It's a legal point, but this is the law. You actually don't think that he deserved indictment here and that it doesn't have to-

So you think a president, in theory, could be indicted or a former president could be indicted. You just disagree with this particular legal case. Is that the gist of your position here? That's absolutely correct. On strong legal footing, this was a bad judgment. And I want to be very clear. I would have made in many of these instances, probably in every one of these instances, different judgments than Donald Trump made. And I will remind you, I'm running against him for this nation in a Republican primary. But we cannot conflate a bad judgment with a crime.

We have to actually match it up with the law. That's the problem with the Alvin Bragg indictment. That's the problem with the first Jack Smith indictment. These facts do not meet the law and the legal test relevant to the actual facts at issue. And the fact that that indictment in 49 pages did not once mention the Presidential Records Act is one of many signs of politicization. They included statements that Trump had made on the campaign trail against Hillary Clinton in an indictment. I had no place in an indictment. But if you were going to include those statements, they should have also, at least for completeness, included Trump's statement after he won the election, saying that he would not go after Hillary Clinton

for those same alleged defenses. So this reeks to me of politicization, and I think it sets an awful precedent for prosecutions in this country. Let me just say, and then I'll let Sagar move on to the next area that we want to get from you, but I mean, they literally have him on tape being like, "'This document is classified.

"'When I was president, I could have declassified it, "'but I didn't do that. "'Let me show it to you. It seems to me and based on a lot of legal analysis that I've read and even his own lawyers and team saying that they think that his only out now is not through the legal system, but by winning reelection as president of the United States, that this is a fairly compelling case. It's certainly one that would be brought against an ordinary citizen.

So we'll just agree to disagree on our legal analysis here because I want to move forward. Just one small point because just, Crystal, the critical point is there is a special law that deals with presidents of the United States. So the analogy of what an ordinary citizen would

or would not have been prosecuted for. Yeah, but he's not president anymore. He's not president anymore. The Presidential Records Act explicitly is written to cover prior presidents. You know that if you had documents laying around your bathroom

that have nuclear secrets. I don't want to be defending Donald Trump's behaviors here. Yes. But I've written extensively and I believe the law to cover prior presidents. You know that if you had documents laying around your bathroom that have nuclear secrets. I don't want to be defending Donald Trump's behaviors here. But I've written extensively and I believe the law should be applied actually rather than making up the law. Well, he'll have his chance to make his case in court. He should.

Vivek, I do actually want to ask you also about another one of your opponents you don't often get asked about as much, Governor Ron DeSantis. We actually have a more recent poll. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen, which actually shows you tied with him in this race. However, interestingly enough, an analysis of some of the voters that he are losing really seems to be around the central role that he's made wokeness in his campaign. Since you have also not only written a book about

wokeness, you talk about it quite a bit. Why do you think his message here isn't resonating? And are you learning anything from his continuing fall in the polls? So, Zucker, I want to be clear. My message in this campaign is fundamentally different than Ron DeSantis' message. And, yes, when I wrote my book, Woke Inc., long before the word woke was in the Republican parlance,

I was analyzing a problem that, at that point, was poorly understood by many Americans in this country. In this campaign, I was analyzing a problem that at that point was poorly understood by many Americans in this country. In this campaign, I'm moving us forward. This is about national identity. I think wokeness is just a symptom of our deeper void for purpose and meaning in our country. And I think people are hungry for the real answer here, not playing whack-a-mole with wokeism, declimatism, symptomatic therapy. I think people are hungry for the real thing. I want to be very clear. I think Ron DeSantis, in many ways, certainly has been a very good governor in Florida. Of course, you could pick something in anybody's record,

so nobody's perfect. But I think by and large, he's been a good governor. I think there's a lot of parallels between him and Scott Walker, who was also an excellent governor. I think there's a role for everyone in our movement and in our country. He's a great executor. But when it comes to leading this nation, I think as Reagan provided in 1980, leading us out of our last national identity crisis, I think what this moment calls for is a leader who has a vision for where we are going, a vision for what it actually means to be an American.

And I think there's a difference between being able to articulate and inspire people around an affirmative vision and being able to litigate small ball grievances as a way of executing within a state. One of the core things that you have led with is I'm the guy who will actually get it done. I will actually execute the America First movement. But if you look at Governor DeSantis, this is a man who turned a blue state or at least purplish state actually red. He won a 20-point electoral victory. He has legislated, actually gotten things done through actual political process.

So why should we take somebody who is an entrepreneur with no actual political experience over an elected governor of millions of people, somebody who's proven himself in a state legislature, when you're looking at your two records on the who can get it done question. Well, look, I've gotten a lot of things done in my life as well. I've built multi-billion dollar companies from scratch, employed thousands of people in this country. And so everyone in this race, from DeSantis to myself, has prior accomplishments to be able to point to. I think the question is the unique challenge of being the president of the United States and leading us forward. One of the things that's different from me and every other single candidate in this race

is I'm the only one who is not bound by the constraints applied by the mega donor class. This is the super PAC primary, absolutely. And I think we have a lot of super PAC puppets in this election. Last time around, it was Jeb Bush and Scott Walker And I think we have a lot of super PAC puppets in this election. Last time around, it was Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. This time we have a lot more. Is Ron DeSantis a super PAC puppet? Well, you can look at whose campaigns are principally funded by super PACs and follow the facts for yourself. But what I will say is that I am unconstrained by that. I've put in 15 plus million dollars already of my hard-earned money precisely because I did not want to take a tin can, wring a hat in hand, and ask a bunch of donors for permission to

run because that comes with constraints. And so when we're talking about the issues we really need to tackle, shutting down the administrative state from the FBI to the ATF to the IRS to the Department of Education to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where I've laid out unprecedented clarity in exactly how we will do it on strong legal authority. Declaring independence from China, very touchy issue in the Republican donor class. Other issues that I'm tackling, other candidates are constrained if they're tied to mega donors that have interests that stop them. My position on Ukraine, very similar. Let me ask you a follow-up on the super PAC thing because I think that's interesting

that you have that critique of money in politics. I mean, would you push for a constitutional amendment to change that? What would you do to try to diminish the influence of that money in politics? And also, equally, isn't it just as problematic that you've been a very wealthy, successful guy that you're able to, with your own cash, really impact the course of this race?

I think that is significantly less problematic, Crystal, because people can at least judge that on its own terms transparently. I think it is far more problematic when you're a representative and a puppet for somebody else's interests. And I think that there's a big difference there, right? So here's what I would do. One thing I would say is if I'm the nominee, as I expect to be in the general election, I'll throw out a pass to Joe Biden or whoever my opponent is to catch. Remember, the left was the one that preached Citizens United in 2010, wanted money out of politics. I'll say this. We'll make a handshake deal that we both shun Super PAC money. We're not going to show up at events where a Super PAC representative is also present.

But you're not looking for any sort of legislative change, though? Well, I'm going in order of what's actually achievable. Because Citizens United is a complicated holding, and this is complex terrain, and I've spent years studying this. I share much of the left's agita with the influence of money on politics. Read Woking carefully. That's what the book is about, actually. So that's the first thing I would do,

and I would make that deal with anybody else in this Republican primary. The other thing I would say is there's a difference between super PACs and PACs, right? So there are these 501c4 entities that have such a complicated, unnecessarily Byzantine arrangement. But there are certain rules that say, hey, at least there are certain kinds of money in these other kinds of tortured legal creations where it can't advocate for candidates specifically, but can advocate for issues. I think that's actually a reasonable middle ground

to say that people still have their First Amendment protections using their own money to advocate for issues or for issues of public importance without actually throwing that money behind a candidate alone. And so this is complicated. to advocate for issues or for issues of public importance without actually throwing that money behind a candidate alone. And so this is complicated. It butts up against complex First Amendment jurisprudence. But I think the easiest way to lead is through action. And so I'll make a deal with anybody I'm running against. And if they abide by it,

I'll commit to do the same. Shun the super PAC game and revive actually a race that is about one person, one vote, one person, one voice. That was the promise of the American experiment. We fought a revolution to say that we, the people, settle our differences through free speech and open debate in the public square where every person's voice and vote counts equally. The left used to be on board with that. I hope they still are.

I think we live in a moment where Republicans can and should embrace this message too. I'm leading the way on that. And I think that's going to be good for our country if we get there. You talked there about voting. And actually one of the more controversial things that you've put forward is a proposition that to be able to vote under the age of 25, you would either have to serve in the military or to pass a test. Why, you know, a decent portion of the people who are watching this show, you do a lot of online shows, are actually below the age of 25. What is the case to them to deprive them

of their right to vote under the U.S. Constitution? Let me, and first of all, this would require a constitutional amendment. So you're absolutely right that the current constitutional state of affairs, this is not something that I'm talking about, is a law. Let me actually share with you, Sagar, this has been distorted many times over, what the heart of my proposal actually is,

and then build into that. Nothing you said was inaccurate, but let me get to the heart of the motive. What I've said is every high school student who graduates in this country should have to pass the same civics test that each of our parents, I'm going to presume, had to pass in order to become citizens of this country, right to presume, had to pass in order to become citizens of this country, right? Every immigrant has to pass in order to become a citizen of this country. I think I'll stand by and wait for a good argument, I still haven't heard one, for why high school students in this country, when they turn 18, should not have to know the same things about the country that a naturalized citizen, we demand them to know as well.

And so now let's talk about actually a legal structure we already have. Age 18 to 25, young men in this country have to already register. You did it, I did it, I'm sure. Selective service registration on pain of criminal penalties. You have to register for the draft. I've said that I would actually decriminalize that. I don't think that's the way we should do things in this country. But in return for decriminalizing the selective service mandate for men in the age of 18 to 25, I've said we need to instead tie civic privileges to civic duties as our founding fathers envisioned. We live in a constitutional republic. That means something.

It means our civic privileges come with civic duties attached to them. That's what our founding fathers envisioned. And that's part of what I think we need to revive. And so I've said that, yes, I believe that at least when you're age 18 to 25, that same window where we have selective service mandates today, you at least have to pass that same civics test that an immigrant has to pass, or else tests aren't for everybody. At least serve the country in some minimal way, military or first responder role. And I'll tell you what I expect to happen.

Voting rates are very low in kids and young people among the ages of 18 to 25. I think they will skyrocket once we actually make the act of voting mean something. And I think that's actually gonna be an important part of our civic revival in our nation. Let me flip it around then. There's been a lot of discussion

around Joe Biden's cognitive abilities. Should there be then a maximum age to vote when people do lose their cognitive ability? If we're going to have some sort of tests in place on the lower end, should we not have them in place on the higher end as well? So my view is this is not actually a vision for just applying it to young people. This is a vision of what I think should be a civic requirement for really every citizen, but we have to start somewhere. And so I don't believe in somebody who's 60 years old taking away something they've already exercised for all their life. But at some point, if we agree that this is a good premise, that we want an educated citizenry

that lives out its civic duties, feels that sense of civic duty as they go to the ballot box and live their life as citizens, then we're starting with a clean slate that ages into it with people who age into being citizens first. That's the way I look at it. I'm just going to be real with you, Vivek. It seems to me like a way to get a group of voters that don't tend to vote very Republican out of the electorate. That's what it feels like to me. I understand the criticism. You've articulated it very well. It's very civic-based, et cetera, et cetera. You use a lot of good language around it. But it seems very convenient that this group of voters is probably not going to vote for you or Donald Trump in very large numbers and are more likely to show up for Joe Biden.

Crystal, let me let me see if I can convince you of my motivations. I understand. You don't need to convince me. I'm just one voter. That's a reasonable question. But just for fun, just for fun. Let's give it. Let's let's.

I enjoy these conversations. So here's what I would say. First of all, if that were the case, I wouldn't say it now because I don't have an ability to change that in the election that I'm actually running in, right? To the contrary, I actually, one of the things that I'm seeing in this campaign

is more than any other candidate in either side, in either political party, we're going to college campuses. We're confronting people with diverse views across this country, including young people. 40% of the donors to my campaign, we have 70,000 plus donors already, 40% of them are first time ever donors to the GOP, and many of them are actually young. And the reaction that I get when I go to college campuses with this idea, Crystal, is at first, yes, it does make

people perk up a little bit. But when we talk through the justification and talk through the actual motive, I'm actually seeing something beautiful we haven't seen in this country in a long time, which is this notion of persuasion, actually. We treat people as though they're animals, that we're bean counters. And we say, well, you guys are in the Democrat camp. You guys are in the Republican camp. You're in the black voting bloc. You're in the Asian voting bloc.

Divide people up, vote bank politics. Yeah. There were a bunch of animals that jump up to a bone, like a dog jump into a bone for its treat. No, I believe that we are citizens. And what distinguishes us as human beings from animals is that we can engage in open persuasion and discourse. Let me ask you a little bit about that.

People may impugn my motivations, but I can prove it to you. I'm like, I believe that this is going to be right for the country. I'm like you. I'm looking at the data, looking at which party that this would benefit. And, you know, that's but I'm just one person. People can make their own decision. But speaking of the discourse, you know, one thing that I wanted to ask you, I've listened to a lot of your interviews. You know, I think you've gotten a lot of attraction online. You're coming up in the polls. Like, I think people really need to pay attention to what you're saying.

And when you talk about people who are concerned with climate, you call them climatists, you call them climate cultists. Let's just put some of these news stories up on the screen here. You've got record high temperatures that are causing increasing death in Arizona. You've got workers who are dying from heat exhaustion. You've got people who are being choked by wildfire smoke from Canada. You've got an entire state of Florida

that's basically uninsurable at this point. And American people are living this reality increasingly at this point. And an overwhelming majority of them, some two-thirds, say, yeah, this is a concern for me. So do you have the sort of contempt in your heart for them that comes out in that language when you would describe them as climate cultists?

I have no contempt in my heart, Crystal. I have deep sympathy for people who are hungry for purpose and meaning and have relocated their desire for faith to the faith in climate instead. But why shouldn't... I believe in facts. But what's wrong with this?

Because people are experiencing this in their own lives right now. So, Crystal, in any other context, if the people, the trust, the science crowd were persuaded by lived experience of individuals of something that's actually a macro phenomenon, you would laugh them off the stage as a bunch of rubes who weren't data-driven.

So let's talk data. Let's talk data. Let's talk data. I've got some data that I can put up on the screen. Go ahead and put the next, and then I want to hear from you. Go ahead and put the next pieces up on the screen. We've got some record lows in terms of Antarctic sea ice extent. We've got ocean temperatures that are smashing seasonal records. We had just the hottest June on record. I think it might be helpful for me to lay out my views,

Crystal, because I think you're saying things I agree with. You're saying things I agree with. Tell me what I'm getting wrong here and why this is not something that people should be concerned about and why they're in a cult if they are concerned about it. Sure. So let me lay out some hard facts,

both about my views and facts on the ground. Okay. Are global surface temperatures going up? Yes. Is that likely due to man-made causes? Yes. Is that an existential threat to humanity? There is no evidence to support that. To the contrary, eight times as many people die of cold temperatures rather than warm ones. The earth today is more covered by green surface area than it was even a century ago because carbon dioxide is plant food.

Plants actually grow in slightly warmer climates. The climate disaster-related death rate is down by 98% over the last century, directly attributable to more abundant and plentiful access and use of fossil fuels. So I want to be really clear about my view. This is not a, does climate change exist or not? It's the wrong framing of the question. The question is, what impacts human prosperity, human flourishing in a world in which there are net positive and net negative effects of climate, but also net positive and net negative effects of the use of fossil fuels.

I also find it to be a mystery, and it's a mystery maybe you can help me solve, Crystal. Why is it that many of the people who are the staunchest opponents to carbon emissions are also among the staunchest opponents to hydroelectric energy or to nuclear energy? I think that that suggests there's something else going on. Why the different standards for China? I think that there's something else going on here. That's my point about there's a religious conviction that goes beyond a commitment to the facts.

Let me just say that even Greta Thunberg, who comes in for a lot of criticism as a quote-unquote climate cultist, is now in favor of nuclear energy. I agree with you on nuclear, that that should be more of a push, by the way. If you want to stick to Greta, I actually respect Greta for one thing. She's honest. She says it's not just about the climate.

It's about social justice. It's about climate justice. It's about equity. So these are things that at least she is actually an honest statement of what the movement stands for. If you're living in a poor neighborhood in this country, you're more likely to be affected by, you know, the toxic plants and toxic chemical plants.

Disagree. You're more likely to be affected by restraints on fossil fuels is actually what you're likely to be affected by the toxic plants and toxic chemical plants and dirty water. Disagree. You're more likely to be affected by restraints on fossil fuels is actually what you're likely to be affected by. People are dying because of lack of access to fossil fuels. I wonder if you've followed, though, what's happening. Because you're a capitalist, you're a successful business guy, so you certainly understand the way that markets work. You look at Florida, you look at Louisiana, you look at Texas, Colorado, California. These are all places that insurance companies, home insurance companies are pulling out of because the risk of catastrophic weather, extreme weather is so great now that it doesn't make sense for them to insure in these marketplaces.

Florida, you know, you talk about the human impact. Florida is becoming virtually uninsurable because of the lack of home insurance companies that are willing to operate in this state. So I don't know how you can look at the situation right now and say that there aren't already extreme costs being imposed on people, not to mention workers who are falling out from heat exhaustion, et cetera. So Crystal, I don't take my facts on the climate change debate from what the home insurance market is actually doing. In many ways, that's distorted by the same change debate from what the home insurance market is actually doing. In many ways, that's distorted by the same climate cult manifest through the ESG movement, because the shareholders of these companies, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, are effectively requiring them to behave that way. Why are they doing it? It's because CalPERS,

State of New York, and large pension funds have said they won't invest with the large asset managers unless they're signatories of the Climate Action 100 Plus Network. But let me say on that too. That's $60 trillion. So I've written books about this. We can go into as much depth as you want. I know you have. But you do know, I mean, on the ESG thing, I have my own critique of ESG that is greenwashing.

But none of these companies care about the environment or climate or whatever. There are studies that show that the funds and the companies that claim ESG and they're all about it, et cetera, they're actually dirtier than the other companies. So in a sense, you've won on that front. But Sagar has a question for you. I don't want to monopolize all the time. And I know that you have a limited amount of time for us as well. Actually, my last question for you, Vivek, is on Mexico. You've talked and been shared a lot of the critique that we've had here on Ukraine about the military industrial complex, about pursuing things that are not of our strategic interest.

But you've talked on your website about using the military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels. I know previously you had at least rhetorically opened yourself up to an invasion. So, I mean, what are you going to send America's sons and daughters into Mexican territory? What military resources are you going to use? Are we going to declare war on Mexico? How is this all going to work? No, we're not going to declare war on Mexico. My top objective is to get Mexico to take care of its own problems.

Sagar, there is a fundamental difference between what's happening with the drug cartels in Ukraine. What's happening in Ukraine does not affect the lives of Americans here on American soil. What's happening with the Mexican drug cartels in Mexico does. So that's just a fundamental difference. But even against that backdrop, absolutely, I don't want to. Declaring war on Mexico would be a boneheaded idea. I'm not going to do it. So here's what I would do. Here's what I would do. On your website, though, you do say, use our military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels. So what does that entail? And the Mexican drug cartels are as much of a threat to the sovereignty of Mexico as they are to the United States. They're more of a threat to the sovereignty of Mexico.

So here's what I would do. I've said that I would use, here's what I would commit to doing. Use our military to secure our own southern border. The wall has been insufficient. Cartel financed tunnels built now underneath that wall. Trucks can drive through them. And then I would work with Mexico diplomatically to say that, listen up, for a tiny fraction of the amount we've already spent in Ukraine as of this date, we can help you solve your own problem and regain your sovereignty. There's a presidential election in Mexico. I think it's an important one in 2024 as well. Thankfully, AMLO is going to be out. Hopefully, new leadership embraces not the hugs, not bullets strategy that he has. I think that's been a mistake. I want to actually help Mexico solve its own problem because that will help us. But as a

backstop, if they don't solve the problem, then we're going to have to solve our own problem. And that's the way I expect this to end. Mexico will solve its own problem. Wait, so what does that mean? What does that mean? Are we talking about drone strikes on cartels in Mexico? Are we talking about cruise missiles? Are we talking about boots on the ground?

If Mexico says, we're not working with you. We have military on our own border, and there are a series of steps we can take. Turn off foreign aid of any kind to Mexico or Central America until our border crisis is solved. There's a series of steps we can take, turn off foreign aid of any kind to Mexico or Central America until our border crisis is solved. There's a series of steps to take, and I'm convinced that we will never get to the place of actually having to use war of any kind in Mexico. But at the same time, we have to demonstrate our strength to make sure that Mexico is taking care of its problem in a way that AMLO is absolutely not doing

based on the posture that Biden's taking with respect to them. I just want to get a really clear answer. Is there any scenario under which you would use the U.S. military against Mexico's wishes to go into their country and drop bombs, drone strike, or whatever, cartels? I will not rule out that we have to use, that we may treat Mexican drug cartels

in the way we treated ISIS as terrorists in another country that are posing real risk to Americans. And the risk to Americans is even greater from the Mexican drug cartels than it was from ISIS. That's what I'll say. All right.

Well, Vivek, we got to get you in the studio for a little bit longer next time. I know you got to go. Yeah, thank you. I'm really grateful for the exchange. And we also appreciate the exchange. I have a lot of fun with you guys, so let's do it. Always. All right. We'll see you next time. We really appreciate it. And we will see you guys later. Thanks.

Very excited to be joined now in the studio by tech executive and North Dakota governor and GOP presidential contender, Doug Burgum. Great to see you, sir. Great to be with you, Crystal. All right. Let us know. Why are you running for president? Why do you think you are better than the guy who's the front runner right now, Donald Trump? Well, first of all, we're running against Joe Biden. You got to get there first. Yeah, absolutely. Everybody's got to get there. We're all running the same race. But I'd say

we know that we have an opportunity to improve every American life and we can unleash the best of America. And we can do that by focusing on 180 degree turn on the economy, on energy and national security. So, Governor, you qualify for the debate stage this morning. You're one of the this is the first interview you've given us. We're very excited about it. You did get there in an interesting way. You were offering people $20, I think, for every $1 that they were donating to campaign. Considering your personal wealth, are you trying to buy your debate on the debate stage? Just explain that to people about how exactly that works.

Well, no, that's actually, actually I'm an entrepreneur and I was actually trying to save money. Because if you go to an online firm today and say, hey, can you help us build an online program? Nobody knows us. They'll say, sure, we'll put together an online program. And the cost is about $100 per acquisition for customers. So I'm like, I said, that's nuts. You know, how would you do that more inexpensively? And if the two of you were launching

an online retail business and nobody knew you, you would start out by saying, hey, let's offer a really good product. We'll offer it as a loss leader to get people to come to our site. And if they like what they see, then maybe they'll buy other stuff. And of course, you know, we offer the card to help give people relief from Biden's inflation. Most people that are coming, some don't want the card, some like what they see, and they give a lot more. But again, because of the buzz that it created,

that got us a bunch of earned media. So we got free national attention. And we blew through that. And we passed the 40,000. We'll pass 50,000 shortly. And I think it gives a chance for people. So if anybody still, we still got some cards to give away. If anybody wants to learn more about our campaign, DougBergham.com.

Come check it out. I understand it as a businessman. I understand the logic behind it, but it does feel a little gross to basically bribe people to give you a dollar so that you can get on the stage. Well, I don't think it's bribing. You know, you think of these goofy rules, these clubhouse rules, if you've held national office, if you've been a pundit on a national cable channel, if you've, you know, been in DC for decades, all of those things, and you've got national name recognition, it's pretty easy. If you're, if you're from a state that's got... Some of them aren't having such an easy time.

Yeah, well, or if you're from a state that's got 20 million people. But I mean, these rules are really stacked against people that have fresh ideas, come from unexpected places like small towns and small states. And good ideas can happen anywhere in America. We know this. I mean, we, you know, we built a business on taking kids from small towns and we built a world-class business doing that. So, I mean, I feel like this is a, and to get there in seven weeks, there's something else going on because we had something where we had a group called the Sodbusters. They got together once a week and these were friends from high school, friends from the college, friends from the first startups I was involved in.

And they all said, hey, we want to see Doug on the debate stage. Let's talk to everybody on our holiday card list. Let's talk to all of our coworkers. And so those guys had the whole momentum going before this whole thing. And so there's a lot of ground support coming. I'm for competition. I'm for a debate. I think it's great.

Do you think that President Trump should show up at the debate now that you're going to be on the stage there? Well, you guys are pundits and I think there's a whole industry about what the former president should do and every candidate's got to run their own thing. We want him there. We think everybody should debate. Yeah, of course we do. Every candidate's got to do their own thing.

But I mean, we're excited to be on the debate stage and we're looking forward to talking to Americans about things that affect them, the economy like energy national security so implicitly by running it's not just about Trump it's about all the other candidates in this race you jumped in when some of these people were declared what distinguishes you from the other other governors who also tout executive experience you reference governor Ron DeSantis former governor Nikki Haley why why are you the governor to pick over them well I think the the key differentiator here,

first of all, governors make great presidents, we know that, but the key differentiator is my long business experience, and been successful, but at all levels. I mean, starting out as a kid growing up in a small town in North Dakota, 300 people, and then my dad passed away when I was a freshman in high school, which was tough. He was a World War II Navy vet. Got to see my mom go back to work, widow three kids,

make an ends meet. And then every job I had growing up, working on the farm, working on the ranch, working at the grain elevator, and then actually working as a chimney sweep to help pay my way through college. I mean, these are all jobs that you take a shower at the end of the day, not the beginning of the day. So I understand what working America is going through when they're facing inflation in this environment. And then I had an opportunity. I saw an Apple II computer with VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet. I'm like, wow, that's going to change the world. Literally, I took this small amount of farm ground I got from my dad, mortgaged that, which is something you never do when your grandparents have homesteaded and paid for the farm. You don't take debt out on land, but that

became the seed capital for Great Plains. And we took that from 10 people to 2,000. We had people working 1,200 in Fargo, 400 rest of North America, 400 rest of the world. We had customers. Very impressive. Yeah. But we did that where people said you couldn't do it. And then- So let me ask you, I can't help but notice what I asked. How are you different from President Trump? You kind of pushed that one to the side, which, listen, you're doing your thing.

I understand that it's uncomfortable to criticize him because he's still very popular among the Republican base, even as you want to defeat him. So let me ask you about a specific issue, which is our approach to the Ukraine war. Do you think that the way that Biden has approached it is more or less the right approach? President Trump, former President Trump has said he would get in there and negotiate, end this conflict in 24 hours. Do you think you could do that?

Do you think that, you know, how do you view that conflict? And are you more on the side of President Trump's approach or are you more on the side of Joe Biden's approach? Well, Crystal, I'll just tell you that we wouldn't even be in this situation if not for Biden's energy policies, because if we hadn't allowed all of our allies in Western Europe to become completely dependent on Russian energy, then there's no way that Putin says I'm invading the Ukraine. But it is what it is. We're here now.

We're here now. But again, this is something where when we talk about energy policy, it's one sentence. Sell energy to our friends and allies. Stop buying it from our adversaries. And you can't take the Ukraine and separate that from our biggest challenge, which is China. China is the largest importer of oil and gas in the world. 10 million barrels of oil a day. And we've had Secretary Blinken, Janet Yellen, Envoy Kerry, all there. I don't know that any of them talked about energy when they're talking about China.

This is the tool that we have. On the question of Ukraine, though, continue support? Do you support, let me ask you a specific one. Do you support the shipment of cluster bombs to Ukraine? Yes. Would you have voted in favor or pushed for all of the aid packages that we have sent? Yes or no? Well, we need more accountability on the dollars we're sending, but there's no option.

We can't, we cannot. And would you, is there an upper limit to the level of support that you would give to them? And how would you pursue peace in the end? Beating Putin in Europe is cheaper than World War III. It's cheaper than NATO involvement. The most fiscally conservative thing we can do is win and beat Putin. A win for Putin is a win for China.

And again, our belated energy policy, we're like, oh, after Biden, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and then kind of green lighting Putin's invasion by saying, well, hey, if it's an incursion, then maybe we won't do anything. Those are all huge diplomatic signals that say, hey, come on in. Well, now we're in this spot where belatedly we go, hey, we're going to put on sanctions on

Russian oil and gas. Well, guess what? They're still selling oil and gas. You put sanctions on a commodity like soybeans or oil in a global market, guess what happens? They sell it to somebody else. Who's buying it? China. I just said China, large numbers. So would you lift the sanctions on? Well, it doesn't make any sense. China, our adversary, is getting oil and gas at 20% off. I mean, a farmer and I would like to be paying 20% off their diesel tomorrow, but they're not. So the sanctions, maybe they feel good, but then they're buying oil from Russia using

Chinese yuan. We are undermining the US dollar because for the first time in history, petrol transactions are occurring not in the US dollar. So it is- It's an interesting position that we're hearing here. It's about more military, or you want a military aid to Ukraine, but not sanctions. So then you also referenced NATO and-

I'm not saying not sanctions, I'm saying- Well, critical of our current sanctions regime. I think that's fair. Sanctioning a car, you sanction US soybeans, and then you buy them from Brazil. We actually agree about that. We have no disagreement here, literally whatsoever. A question here, you've referenced World War III, NATO membership. NATO membership for Ukraine, yes or no? What do you think? Well, it certainly should come as a time because, I mean, the whole point of NATO is that everybody's

unified in preventing Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. And the only person that's fighting and losing lives right now is Ukraine. I mean, they should be getting a medal from NATO as opposed to, hey, we may or may not let you join. So at their most recent summit, would you have given and extended them membership even though there's an active war zone going on? Not at this time. I would say, hey. But you think there should be a pathway for membership?

They're doing the job of NATO. They're doing what NATO was set up to do. Well, it's a collective defense agreement, not necessarily an aggressive agreement. So let's say that this thing wraps up. There's a peace agreement and all that. Why should then America's Article 5 protection nuclear umbrella be extended to, let's say, the Donbass region of Ukraine? Why is that going to nuclear war over for American security? Well, I think, again, you have to understand Russia's not a country the way we might think of countries. I mean, everybody understands this is a series of mob bosses. I mean, call them oligarchs. And then we saw this with Prokosian, who, you know, it wasn't just that, hey, we've got, you know, mercenary soldiers coming out of

Russian jails, you know, fighting in the Ukraine. I mean, there are 65 shell companies under what they're doing in the Wagner Group. And so, you know, they're running gold mines in the Central African Republic. I mean, when they were, quote, helping out in Syria, they took over 25% of Syria's oil production. You know, what's Putin's net worth? 70 billion? I mean, this is just a series of mob bosses all working together. It's not a country the way we think about it. And you're asking, like, really good questions about how would you negotiate with another country. But we're actually, these are criminal enterprises that are operating. And sort of somehow the idea that we're going to, like.

Yeah, but they're mobs, but they got nukes. I mean, we've had a long time. Listen, I mean, it's not like the Soviet Union was the easiest system to negotiate with. We figured it out. It was actually, frankly, even more barbaric, you mean, it's not like the Soviet Union was the easiest system to negotiate with. We figured it out. It was actually, frankly, even more barbaric, you know, in many respects in the ways they treated each other. So, like, you are going to have to negotiate. You know, Xi Jinping, I mean, he's got his people get killed every once in a while or disappear. As president, you would be put in that position regardless whether you like the system or not.

So would you respect, I mean, are you saying that you wouldn't respect them because they're mob bosses? You wouldn't be able to talk to them? Like what's the diplomatic overture here? Or is the end goal to push out that regime altogether? No, I think we have to just focus on American objectives. Obviously we need to do that, but we have to be smart about it. We have to have a full range of both military and economic statecraft that we're going. And right now we're not applying either of those very effectively. And I think again, we're in a cold war with China today, but it's much more complicated. It's not just about build up our military and then have a strong economy. I mean, Reagan provided a good model of peace through strength, but our economy, the Russian economy in 1989 when they collapsed was quite small.

I mean, it was smaller than some of our US state. Yes. And we weren't completely interconnected. Now we have China, the second largest economy in the world and our, as the number one economy, ours is completely intertwined. They're completely with each other. And so it's not just, you know, let's draw a line and then there's a set of a trading block that's all with China and a trading block that's all with the U.S. and its allies.

That doesn't work. I mean, there has to be a path forward for our little planet where everybody prospers better when you've got the ability to talk to each other instead of about each other. Sure. No one here is going to deny it's an extraordinarily complex and nuanced situation. Just to put a pin on this, and we want to get some economic questions, and I know you have a short, about five more minutes that you have with us. Do you support, I mean, would you be pushing for regime change in Russia so that you would have someone that you felt like you could work with more effectively? I don't think you have to push

for it. I mean, we've got economics and we've got actuarial tables on our side. I mean, there will be a regime change. And whether I don't know that this is something, I mean, America doesn't have a great track record on trying to drive regime changes in other countries. But we have to be fully prepared and not know what that regime change is going to be. And that regime change, I mean, we saw that there was an attempt at a regime change with Prigozhin, and that certainly weakened the, you know, between the different mob bosses, there's certainly a different power structure today than there was a month ago. And who knows, maybe it'll happen for us. So let's do a little bit of economics lightning rounds. My sense from, you know,

watching you speak, reading your website is you're kind of a traditional economic conservative. So let me ask you on a number of issues, and Sagar and I can go back and forth here. So on the Social Security program, do you think it should be cut? Do you think it should be left alone? Or do you think it should be increased? North Dakota this year, we were able to successfully, after 30 years of debate, close the defined benefit pension plan for state employees and at the same time protect every employee that's in it. The advances that are coming on genomic medicine, I mean, there's going to be entire disease classes that get

eliminated the next 10 or 15 years. I think every actuarial table in America is off. So just cut, keep it the way it is, or increase. And in terms of cuts, what I'm reading into what you're saying is for people who are in it, they're going to be fine. But what about younger Americans? What would you say to them? Well, your question suggests that those are only the three choices. And I think what we have to do where we've made a commitment to Americans, we have to protect that. If we've made a commitment, you're in Social Security, we have to protect that. But we also can't bankrupt America at the same time on the other side.

You have to figure out a way to be smart about doing it. And part of that has got to be economic growth because if we don't have our economy shrinking. So young Americans could potentially see cuts. Right. So if we paid in the system, I'm 31. Yeah, I guess I haven't paid in the system that long. I mean, am I on the chopping block? Like, under your kind of analysis here, presumably I would benefit from the genomic medicine.

As a 31 year old, well, you're gonna be living to be 100, but do you? Hopefully, yeah. I mean, all you youngsters are gonna live that long, but I mean, do you expect that you're gonna see a paycheck? I don't know, I mean, are you depending on it? Since the government has made that commitment, the government should fulfill that commitment.

I paid a lot of money in payroll taxes. I also know what Social Security has meant for old age poverty. I also know that it's one of the most popular social programs in the history of the country. So the American people are certainly on the side of let's figure out how to keep benefits the way they are. Yes, and if you've got both parties agreeing that you can't touch it and it's financially and actuarially completely unsound. Well, you can always lift the cap and that would very much change the revenue. Yeah, we can change payroll tax. You guys are saying we have something that's financially going to drive us off a cliff.

We're trying to get you nailed down on what you think. Yeah, but you're saying that we shouldn't fix things that are broken. Is that what you're saying? Well, I think what we're advocating or what we're trying to advocate for is a vast majority of even Republican seniors, you know, hands off my Medicare was a huge part of the Tea Party movement back in 2010. Same with Social Security. A lot of these seniors and even people who are 40s, 50s coming into the system feel as if that their future is uncertain. So I mean, at that very basic level, like speak to them, to those people that are like, hey, I'm afraid. Are you going to take my money away? Like I barely am able to make

my mortgage right now with inflation, with freaking home insurance and all this stuff. I've got a fixed income. You know, I think, what is it, 50-something percent of these seniors relying entirely on Social Security. Just speak to the concern that those people have right now. And also to people like us who are, like, looking at the system and saying, hey, maybe, you know, let's say you haven't done so well in life. Like, that's at least one thing that you can rely on whenever you get old. And I think that's why we say at all costs you have to protect that system for those people, the ones that you're talking about. It has to be protected.

Social Security, Medicaid, we've got to protect that. But if we have that there and we still have to as a country, the country of saying, how do we do things that actually are financially viable for future generations? I'm just, I don't know what that means. So be a little more specific because that's, I feel like you're, you know, you're not giving us a direct answer. I'm giving you. Is part of what you would be looking at for people who aren't in the program yet reducing the benefits? Or would you be looking more toward the side of, okay, how do we bring in more revenue? Because I'll tell you, I think a lot

of people look at, you know, all the money that we're spending in the Ukraine war, and it's like, there's always money for the Pentagon. There's always money for the defense industry. There's always money for the Ukraine war, but there's this constant fixation on how do we peel back the pennies that are given to ordinary Americans? Well, you know, we're spending $2 trillion on complete folly around, you know, forcing an ideology around an energy policy. You know, we're going to say we're going to subsidize 500,000 EV charging stations. We're going to subsidize people buying expensive EV cars. And we're going to buy batteries from who? China, because China controls 85% of all the rare earth minerals in the

world. And so we're just trading OPEC for- So are we going to use that money for social security? Well, it certainly would be a better use because again, we figured out in this nation through markets how to provide transportation without saying, if you want to have 500,000 EV charging stations and you can't get a permit to build a transmission line, and at the same time we're trying to shut down all the base load in this country. You'd need five times the transmission lines to run those things.

So the policies that we're literally spending trillions on don't make any sense economically, physics, any of that activity. We're still not talking about Social Security. Well, we are, but you're saying where's the dollars? So you're saying some of those dollars would be re-appropriated? There's all kinds of dollars that would be freed up to fix the thing that really mattered to take care of Americans. So no cuts to Social Security for young people? Okay. Is that yes?

Well, you could say yes, no cuts for young people as a politician, and then guess what? 40 or 50 years from now, where's the money coming from? Well, you're running for president. People want to know, you know, what do you think on this issue? What would you do? What would your approach be? I think I'm honest about the fact that the thing is not actuarially sound. Okay, so it'd be on the table, effectively. No, we have to protect everybody that's in the program right now, but then how do you solve a

problem when there's not enough money to pay for it? You have to have growth, and part of the way you have growth is you get rid of the red tape, you have innovation, not regulation, you have an energy policy that allows our economy to sprint not not just crawl or fail And then we stop doing things that are supporting China like our energy policy is a win for Chinese Telling us that you have to go so you've done very well in your life Do you think that you pay too high too low or just about the right in terms of taxes and for people who have also? Done very well. Well in North Dakota word. We're working to get eliminate income taxes because You want to have an incentive well on the federal system, so you're running for president.

So how do you think the federal tax regime treats, you know, your people of your net worth and higher? There's a lot of people who even Republicans really are concerned about that. I'm just curious, you know, we very rarely get to speak to somebody like you as both high net worth individual and a politician. So how do you look at the current tax regime federally of which you would be in charge of? Well, one of the things that I love about, one of the few places, government does not provide competition. One of the few places it does provide competition is at the state level where different states

can have a state with less regulation and lower taxes. And guess what? It attracts talent and capital to come to those locations. And everybody asks these questions about tax policy, like there's not movement of talent. We should be trying to attract all the talent in the world to come to those locations. And everybody asks these questions about tax policy like there's not movement of talent. We should be trying to attract all the talent in the world to come to America. This is the land of opportunity. We should be creating a place where capital and talent want to come to our country as opposed to we drive it away.

And then everybody assumes – I mean it's like if you have a bad product and you're in business, you have a bad product and say, hey, we're losing money. What should we do? Let's raise price on our product. Well, then you'd go out of business because people aren't paying your product anyway. So you think we should have lower taxes so more rich people from other countries should move here? It's not about rich people. Okay, upper class, engineers. I started out with basically nothing. I mean part of income mobility up, that's part of the American dream.

And this idea that there's a static class that somehow know, that somehow it's not paying their share. I mean, you know, that is increasingly the case, though. I mean, if you look at the tax rate, not paying the share, 128,000 people in California, 128,000. Very wealthy pay, as opposed to your average middle class person, the very wealthy as a percentage of their income pay far less. And it's a percentage of their income. 1% of Californians pay 50% of their taxes in a high tax rate. Do you think that at the federal level, do you think at the federal level that the tax regime is too hard on the rich or to be lowered further so we could attract whoever it is you want to attract to the country? Is that the policy?

You guys with this class warfare thing, rich, poor, like it's like, Oh, we're just trying to get your taxes back, CD. Is that the policy? You guys with this class warfare thing, rich, poor, like it's like business. We're just trying to get your tax policy, dude. No, but it's like, no, you're not. You're trying to frame it in some kind of ideology about some people aren't paying enough. No, we're just trying to ask you a question because you're running for president and you're not answering the question. That's all we're trying to do. I think I'm answering the question.

I answered the question. Do you like it the way it is? Would you change it? Do you think it's too hard on the rich to, you know, the top income bracket? If you don't want to call them the rich, just tell us what your tax policy would be. We don't. All the programs you guys are talking about are paid for with borrowed money. And that borrowed money comes from foreign countries that buy our bonds.

And so we need capital flow to the United States for us to be competitive. And we want to have a regulatory and tax regime where capital flows to our country. That ensures prosperity for everybody. So lower taxes. I think when you've got less regulation, lower taxes, then capital and talent flows in that direction and that grows the economy. And then guess what? Then everybody has an opportunity to prosper. We're not in a static. We appreciate your time, sir. Thank you. We appreciate the back and forth. Thank you for spending some time with us. We appreciate it. Yeah. Well, fun to be with all of you and happy to keep the dialogue. But you guys are at least talking about, you know, not just in soundbites.

We've got to talk about real issues. Yeah, we 100% agree with you on that. Politics, there's real policy changes where if we make the right policy changes in the executive branch, I'm an operating guy. All I've ever done is I will never be a senator. I'll never be a congressman. I'm not a politician. I know how to run things. I know how to take costs out. You know, 10 to 20% of every job in government today is some soul-sucking, mindless, repetitive thing that brings no value to the person doing it and no value to the citizens. If it's 10 or 20%, that could be 400,000 federal employees. It's not 400,000 individuals. It's 10 to 20% of 2 million jobs.

Yeah. That's not adding value. Can we have it? And you'd say, how are we going to pay for Social Security? Well, one way you do for that is you lower the cost of federal government. I believe in states' rights. We need to reduce the size of the federal government by actually following the Constitution. The 10th Amendment says that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.

And the federal government and the president have a narrow job description. It's not like do everything for everybody. It's that's reserved to the states, comma, or for the people, which is some of these things. Governor, your team is gonna kill us if we don't. But I'm just telling you, there is a path forward to be able to do what you wanna do,

which is have secure benefits for our seniors and those in needs and have a prosperous economy. These are not, there is a world of abundance out there and we can create wealth in this country for everybody if it happens, particularly with the advancements that are coming in technology, we can do that. But everybody asks like all the questions that everybody asks in all these shows, it's like it's a fixed income and it's either we got to give it to them or take it away from

those guys. That's not the way it works. We have grown our economy and we'll continue to grow our economy if we understand how economies work. We can lift the boat for everybody. Congratulations on getting on the debate stage. We're looking forward to hearing you make the case to the American people. I know they're going to find a lot of what you have to say compelling. So thank you for spending some time with us today. Unlike those shows, we will give you the full time to actually lay out your views. Yeah. There you go.

Congratulations to the internet. I guess you played a role a little bit in making sure that shows like this could exist. So we appreciate your time, sir. Thank you. Great. Well, thank you both for having me on. Absolutely. It's our pleasure.

Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about,

call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. men talk too much. And women have quietly listened. And all that stops here. If you like witty women, then this is your tribe. Listen to the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday on the Black Effect Podcast Network, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or

wherever you go to find your podcast. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad.

Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.