Piers Morgan Uncensored - Candace Owens Calls Out Democrat Hypocrisy

Episode Date: November 8, 2024

The US election has exposed a dramatic shift in the voting patterns of the American people. While black Americans still overwhelmingly voted Democrat, there was a sharp increase in Latino men and women voting for the republicans. Even though abortion rights were also a key issue, Trump didn’t lose a lot of female voters. So what exactly is driving this demographic lurch to the right? For an in depth discussion on that very question, Piers Morgan brings together host of the Candace Owens show Candace Owens, and journalist and author, Marc Lamont-Hill. They question the idea that people should vote for candidates who share their ethnicity, whether celebrity endorsements helped or hurt the Democrats, and if they are in fact the party of women’s rights. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After years of being assured by the left that Trump's the worst racist to ever run for president, you saw so many black voters racing to vote for him. Why? Black men, you could see that they were turning away, especially after Barack Obama and authentically tell the brothers. If you're a black person, it's your duty to behave like this. And fundamentally, that is racist. I already survived into Trump and I was living better. People who just don't like either of them, but it's still calling Kamala Harris a h-h- or, you know, the N-word. These are things that absolutely suggest that misogyny and misogynoir play into it.

The celebrity endorsements really hurt them this time around. We have LeBron James and we have Beyonce and when Taylor Swift gives you a post. I think ultimately they insulted a lot of their voters. If you think that trans women are not women, it would be a violation of women's rights. Trans women are absolutely not women. And that's why we're playing the crazy game right now. I won't play it. I will not address a man that isn't address.

You can play Halloween, you can put lipstick on a pig. It is still a pig, and it is just Halloween. Donald Trump's stunning comeback has upended some long-held assumptions about U.S. politics. His landslide-winning coalition includes many supposed voting groups that Democrats have long taken for granted. But one of the biggest lessons they will need to learn is that demography is not destiny. Black voters aren't a monolith, and neither for that matter are men and women. Trump made huge inroads with black voters, and in the end, the first black female candidate for president fared worse than Joe Biden. of women voting actually increased as the share of the electorate, but a potential first female

president got just 53% of their votes, the worst result for a Democrat in two decades. Despite the prophecy that a comedian's bad joke about Puerto Rico would cost Trump the White House, Trump ended up with 46% of Latino votes and one with Latino men by a whopping 12 points. That's a new dividing line in US politics. It's not black or white nor right or left, but right or wrong. To debate there, I'm joined by host of the Candice Owens show, Candice Owens, and the host of Bet News, Professor and author Mark Lamont Hill. Well, Candice, let me start with you. It was a stunning set of results.

But one of the more stunning things to me is that after years of being assured by the left that Trump's the worst races to ever run for president, you saw so many black and particularly Latino voters racing to vote for him. Why? Yeah, I knew that was going to happen. and that was a big part of my prediction, was that especially black men, you could see that they were turning away, especially after Barack Obama was really patronizing to come out. You left your Martha Vineyards estate and decided to roll up your sleeves and inauthentically tell the brothers how they have to behave. You know, I think it's one of these things where you just can't keep doing the exact same thing all the time.

And I like some people to wake up to your patterns. And it has been a very long pattern of them speaking to people in a manner in which they're essentially telling them that if you don't do this, it's because you're a racist. If you don't do this, it's because you're backwards. If you're a black person, it's your duty to behave like this. And fundamentally, that is racist, right? When you're not even actually saying anything based upon her policies or talking to people as if they're individuals who are having their lives impacted by their bad policy, but rather saying it's incumbent upon you as a woman to vote for her because she's a woman. It's coming upon you as a mandible for him because you're black and she's going to be the first African president, which she wasn't.

And so I think, and I think I've been proven correct here, the celebrity endorsements really hurt them this time around. It felt very cheesy, especially because she wasn't voted for, right? So she had 107 days. She didn't even campaign. They just kind of, it was a coronation more than anything else. The coronation, we've picked her for you and you will do as we are instructing you to do and vote for her because, look, we have LeBron James and we have Beyonce, and that's what you know to do when Taylor Swift gives you a post. I think ultimately they insulted a lot of their voters.

Yeah, I mean, Mark Lemont Hill, I really feel that this time. You know, whether it was Jennifer Lopez lecturing Latinos, you know, this is, you can't vote for this guy, or Barack Obama telling black voters you've got to vote for the black candidate. Oprah, George Clooney. Out they come, you know, as it did for Hillary Clinton, but it didn't work for her, and it didn't work for. Carmela Harris. And I do feel like Candice just said, I felt it actively deterred people. I think it drove them to go and vote against what they saw as a kind of celebrity multi-millionaire elite. What do you think of that?

You guys made a few points I'd like to respond to. First, I don't know if celebrity culture or in the wave of celebrities deterred people from voting, I'd rather rely on the data for that. And until I see the data on that, I don't want to make a determination. I don't want to make a determination. I think that voters in general want to be spoken to about policy issues. I think they want to be engaged about the things that matter in their lives. But Barack Obama also had a ton of celebrities, and it did work. You know, I think if people like you, celebrities are an added bonus. If they don't like you, if they don't want you, celebrities hurt.

I don't think that's the issue here. I think more fundamentally, the question of whether you should vote for somebody because you're black or because you're a woman or whatever is a little more complicated than has been suggested. I think that the message that I would give to somebody is never vote to support somebody because they're black, right? I would never vote for a candidate because they're black. But I will vote for a candidate because I'm black. In other words, I will vote for a candidate that speaks to my interests. And I think it's okay to say to people, hey, there are some things that affect your community and this candidate is better for you.

The problem is we should not presume that because someone is the same race as you or the same gender as you, that they have your community's best interest at heart. I do think in the case of Kamala Harris, though, an interesting thing happened, right? They were basically saying women's reproductive rights are on the table. If you specifically are pro-abortion, you should be voting for Kamala Harris because that's your only chance at saving what has already been a devastating loss. I think that that is logical. If you support abortion, Donald Trump ain't the guy to vote for based on what he said and based on Kamala Harris has said. I think, though, what we saw in America and what we always see in America is that white people, general in terms of the majority are not going to vote for a Democrat. No Democrat has gotten the

majority of white voters since like LBJ. It's been decades. And so ultimately, white people often don't vote their interests. Black people often don't vote their interests. And I think that's the problem. And that's what many of us get so frustrated. But I had a fascinating conversation with an African-American woman, I guess in her late 30s, maybe early 40s yesterday. And she voted Trump for the first time. And I said, why? And she said, you know, it's interesting. It's so I grew up. up in a family where you just would automatically vote for a black presidential candidate if there was one, Barack Obama, and now Kamala Harris. And she said, that was how my family were. And she said, and I decided this time that I didn't care about the fact she was a woman or that she

was black. I cared about what she was going to do for my personal finances, what she was going to do about the border, what she was going to do about all these things. She talked about a number of issues. And it was really interesting. She said, I voted. She said, you know, I was almost colorblind when I voted. I didn't care that she looked like me. I cared about what she could do for me. And I wonder, given how many black voters gravitated to Trump this time, and given particularly how many Latinos did, how many of them were having that same conversation with themselves, saying they may not even like him that much. She wasn't a particular fan of Trump's. But she just was put off by the kind of posture.

of people to try and direct you to vote according to your ethnicity. Yeah. It's fundamentally just not educated to vote for someone and say, well, this person looks like me, so that means that they have my best interests at heart. I just think it's the most uneducated thing you could possibly do. And it's especially rich when you have someone because, Mark, you just said, I maybe wouldn't vote for them because they're black,

but I might vote for them because I'm black, right? And I might think that they're interested. a line. I hope I'm paraphrasing that correctly. But the reality is, is even that fundamentally makes no sense. LeBron James, just because he is black, is not living the black experience of somebody who might be living on the south side of Chicago. It's actually insulting when LeBron James posts something. And you saw this in the comments, by the way, if we could use any metric, it was the fact that LeBron James had to start hiding comments because the overwhelming majority of them were negative when he made a post. And that was very propagandist.

He was using things that Trump said and splicing it and behind clips of the civil rights women. It made entirely no sense. It was offensive, an offensive level of propaganda. You have a man who lives in a $100 million bell air mansion. He does not touch his own door handles. So when he tells you about how he's worried about the future for his children, this man is so wealthy and so connected that he has a son who quite literally is not qualified in terms of his actual metrics to be playing for the Lakers.

but because of good old-fashioned nepotism, he is playing for the Lakers besides his father because they thought, well, good advertisement, a father and a son playing, you know? And so when you see that taking place and this person pretending to be in the struggle, that's why I said Barack Obama exiting his mansion in Martha's Vineyard to come down

and roll up his sleeves and speak to the brothers, it does resonate as insulting. And so at the end of the day, people were moved by, okay, you know what, despite what the media rhetoric is about Trump, how am I actually living right now? And I know they're going to say, well, these statistics show and they've released this.

When I was living under Trump, the gas was low. I was able to afford gas. I was able to afford groceries. And everything the media told me the first time around about him being Adolf Hitler and telling me that he was going to put me back into slave chains, didn't come true, right? It didn't come true.

I already survived under Trump, and I was living better. And so there was this common sense element, and I knew that that was going to happen. And it's beautiful to see. It's beautiful to see people say, I'm not going to respond to that sort of a rhetoric anymore. I'm not going to vote because I'm a woman

or because I'm black, but I'm going to vote what actually make sense. Yeah, Mark, you're shaking your head a lot there. Why? Well, to the first point, Candace, again, you may not have heard the second part of what I said. I said, I vote for someone because I'm black. I said, but I also added, I don't presume that because someone shares my color, that they represent my interest. So I don't assume that the black person is the best person to represent the black community or that the woman is the best person to represent women's I added that part as well, so we're actually not in disagreement there.

I think it's really important to look at the agenda. I have voted in the past for old white men, old white ladies. Again, I didn't vote for Barack Obama when he was on the ticket in 08 as a Green Party member because I thought that the white woman who was running against him, or at that point actually a black woman, had a better chance of meeting my issues. I voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary Clinton. There have been moments where I don't make that alignment, but I do think we have to vote based on our collective community interest.

I think it's interesting though that to say someone like LeBron James can't speak for the conditions of a poor person or the everyday black experience of the person struggling in America, if we make that argument because he's a near billionaire, if not a billionaire, then it would be really hard to make the argument that Trump has the ability to speak for the average Joe.

You know, it's sort of interesting that Trump's whole tendency, his whole campaign has been based on saying, look, his whole, his whole, His whole candidacy is saying, his whole campaign has said, look, I know what is best to heal America. The people who are working in factories, when he goes down to places like Ohio or Pennsylvania, I've literally stood there, as he said, I can get you back working again. I know what you're going through and I can fix the economy for you. And hear me out.

I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm not saying that if you have a billion dollars, you might be able to do that, although I hate billionaires. And if you have no money, you might be representing the interests of the rich. Again, we can't assume a one-to-one correlation between people's, own identity and status and what they're representing because when we do that, we make a lot of dangerous assumptions. So I'm not going to reject LeBron James because he's rich. I'm going to reject him if I were to because I don't agree with his argument, similar to Donald Trump. I happen to agree with LeBron James, though, in this particular case, that Donald Trump did not best represent

the interests of the people. But while I don't think identity politics should govern our decision-making process. I also don't want us to be naive either as a nation. I don't want us to assume that nobody rejected Kamala Harris because of her womanness or nobody rejected Kamala Harris because of her blackness. And the reason why I say that is because when we look at the campaign trail, when we look at the surrogates for Trump and other people, or people who just don't like either of them, but it's still calling Kamala Harris a whore or a slut or, you know, the N-word. I mean, these are things that absolutely, absolutely, just that misogyny and misogynair play into it.

Candice, do you want to respond? Yeah, if I may respond. First and foremost, Trump has never tried to say, I am a blue-collar worker, so that's just completely wrong. He actually leaned into the fact that he is. You correlated him to LeBron James, and you said, well, he does the exact same thing that LeBron James is doing.

No, LeBron James pretends that he is living a struggle. Trump does not. Trump says, I'm rich. I run a company, and I can help you get rich. He literally makes jokes about the fact that he's rich when he's at these events and he's tossing jokes about, I'm a billionaire, I've done this. Like he is the New York City stereotype billionaire

who basically says, I've run businesses and I'm going to run this country like a business and I'm going to lift you up and I understand how trade works because I've been running a business. So I just fully reject that he's somehow cosplaying a blue-collar worker. Blue-collar workers are responding to him

because he speaks in a way that they believe that he's going to uplift him. That's great. I'm happy we agree on that point, but you did try to correlate him to LeBron James five seconds ago, and that's just not the truth. But to respond to your point, because this is really bothered me, people pretending that those who have told the truth about the fact that Kamala Harris did sleep with Willie Brown and was not warranted to the position that she has district attorney, pretending that this came up because she's running for a president or because there's some element of misogyny. That is patently false. It was actually leftist newspapers at the time that she was running in Los Angeles. I pulled up these old articles in the San Francisco Chronicle who were scandalized. They felt that it was a scandal that she was being given so much power that she was being put it on boards. that she did not deserve to be put on,

and that she was being given those positions and making all that money, not based on her merit, but because she was having an affair with Willie Brown. Again, these were the leftist San Francisco articles that were covering it at this time. You can go back, way back, machine it, and read those articles yourself. So people point to the fact that she was essentially coordinated

because of who she was sleeping with in the past, and then now is essentially just being handed another position, not because people voted for her. I think it's relevant to the discussion of whether or not she is qualified for that position. That's fine. And the last thing I'll say is that I found it to be really alarming and borderline satanic in the manner that they ran to women and said, well, this is the election that hinges upon

abortion. And I am not saying this even as a critique of people that are pro-choice. I actually think they moved away from pro-choice. They went like pro-death. It was very bizarre. It wasn't like, you know, the typical we are pro-choice and you are pro-life. They essentially were coming to women and their only basis for saying to vote for her as well, the only thing women could possibly care about is whether or not we have the authority

to murder our offspring. I don't think that actually resided even on the left. They're not that radical on the topic of abortion to make your entire platform hinge upon it. And I think that's the reason why so many people who otherwise are okay with the pro-choice movement, we also saw in those exit polls moved away. Women moved away totally from the Democratic platform.

I think it was a big mistake to hinge an entire abortion, I mean, entire election upon the topic of abortion in the way that they did. Yeah, and you know, Mark, before you respond to that, what I would say about that, and I was discussing this on a BBC interview last night, is it seemed to me there was a real inconsistency, if not hypocrisy. On the one hand, Kamala Harris wanted to make the whole thing about I represent women's rights, vote for me and I'll protect women's rights, and using abortion as her reason for that and bringing back abortion rights and so on. And that's fine, except that at the same time, she has also been actively promoted. promoting the issue, for example, of trans athletes in women's sport, which most people can see is an erosion of women's rights. It's unfair, it's unequal. Last week, the United Nations said that 900 medals have been deprived from women athletes by trans athletes competing against him, which is obviously completely outrageous. And we saw the scenes in Paris where boxers with male chromosomes were literally beating up women in front of the world. I mean, the whole thing was grotesque. I don't know how the Democrat could consistently say to women, we are here for protecting women's rights,

when at the same time they're advocating a direct attack on women's rights. Yeah, I want to respond to the point that can't mismay prior. Again, it wasn't me pivoting or shifting my position. I wasn't suggesting that Donald Trump or LeBron James were cosplaying. I'm saying that neither is cosplaying. I think my point is not that LeBron James is a legitimate poor person. My point is he's a rich person who is able to speak to the experiences of a poor person, someone who was dirt poor at one point, and now he's pivoted. That's what I'm saying he's doing.

And I'm saying no matter what class position you're in, if your politics are right, then you can speak to the issue. That's all I'm saying. I was never suggesting the thing that you were representing me to have been saying. It sounds like it was just a miscommunications. I actually don't disagree with you on the big point. As far as the race piece of this or the misogyny piece of this, pointing to, you know, a left-wing newspaper and saying, well, look, it's not misogyny. A left-wing newspaper was questioning this. Left-wing newspapers are misogynists. Democrats are misogynist. You know,

misogyny isn't a right-wing problem. It's a universal problem. So just because it's in a left-wing newspaper doesn't nullify the claim. But it's a valid critique. I'm sorry to cut you off. I don't like to cut you off. But I just want to say, do you not think it's a valid critique, if somebody is given a job, not because they're qualified, but quite literally because they are sleeping with someone who gave them the position, which, like I said, caused a firestorm at that time. Do you not think it's a valid critique to say, well, they weren't even qualified to be the DA? And now all of a sudden they're trying to tell you that they're qualified to be the president of the United States. So do you think that's a valid critique, like setting aside misogyny?

If that were the point I was making, I would agree with you. But that wasn't the example you gave that wasn't responsive to the point I was making. I'm saying right now, as she's running for president, there are people saying she's unqualified for the office. I think it's much more of a reasonable question to raise 20 years ago when she's running for DA. I didn't take issue with that, right? Although I don't know enough about the Willie Brown situation to speak to it. If what you're saying is true, then yeah, you should question that. But I'm saying right now in 2024, after serving as vice president, after serving in the U.S. Senate, after serving as a district attorney, after having all of these jobs, state attorney general,

I don't think qualification is the right thing to raise. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, I don't think she's good at this. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say she's bad. What about the point? Okay, but what about the point? I think it's a different issue. Let's move. To the trans point, to the trans point, to the trans point, to the trans point, to the trans point, I don't think it's a contradiction for Democrats to do that unless they accept the terms of your argument.

Let me be clear. If you think that trans women are not women, then yes, it would be a violation of women's rights to say that trans women should be boxing. I happen to believe. No, no, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mark. I need to finish. No, no, no.

I insist on finishing this point because I will not be cut off and misrepresented. Let me make the point. I happen to believe that biological males should not participate in women's sports. I am firing taking that position. Yeah, that's my point. Sometimes if you hear me out, you realize we're not even debating. But there are many Democrats who don't take that position. There are many people on the left who believe that, and let me be clear, I think trans women are women.

I just think sports are divided in a very particular way. In eighth grade, we make a decision that we need to divide sports up by gender or by sex, right? Because we believe that there's something fundamentally different about biological boys and biological girls to say, we shouldn't be running on the same track team. We shouldn't be boxing each other. I'm okay with that argument. I agree with that argument. I suspect I don't want to speak for Candace, but I suspect she agrees with me on this,

and I suspect you agree with me on that. So we're not in disagreement on that. But just because I have that position, doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with me is being a hypocrite because they don't begin from the same premise that I begin from. That's all I'm saying. So I don't think it's contradictory. Hang on. Hang on.

Okay, but all right, let me, hang on. But what other premise could there possibly be? The bottom line is these are people who were born biological males who are competing against biological females. And there's a reason why we don't do that in sport. It's why the Olympics have always separated the sexes. because the truth is, if they didn't, women wouldn't win any medals. Look, I mean, listen, I know that you...

I think what you should do is bring someone in who has the position that you're trying to debate. It's like you're trying to force a debate with me on something that we agree on. So bring on somebody who has the opposite position, and they can speak for that. But what I'm saying is that... Right. I just wanted to add here, like, just to say where we do actually differentiate, like trans women are absolutely not women. And that's why we're playing the crazy game right now is because we have people that are trying to parse reality and say,

well, I believe trans women are women, but they're also biological men. The fact that we are calling them trans women is because they are not women. I am a woman, and no matter how you feel on the inside, you are never going to be a woman. And that disagreement, that fundamental disagreement is the reason why we are playing the crazy game. I won't play it. I will not address a man that is in a dress as a woman. It's insulting to me. It's insulting to the things that women, actual women, live through in their lives. And, you know, you can play Halloween. You can put lipstick on a pig.

It is still a pig, and it is just Halloween. So I just feel very strongly about that, and I wanted to make that clear. And that this is a large part, though, appears going back to your point of why, because my sisters were on the left, and this is the first election that they voted for Trump. They're from Connecticut,

died in the wool, Democrats, I guess you could say, and they moved away. And the trans issue was the number one reason that they did. What they said was happening in the school system, made them fearful. They have sons. They thought it was completely crazy and bizarre that they're insisting upon trying to,

to make toddlers. My sisters have toddlers believe that they can be anything that they want and that they're non-binary. They truly believe the left has gone crazy. And they say, I didn't leave the left. The left left left me. And that is an accurate statement to make because they cannot just see things that are just so plainly obvious. They are trying to criminalize the idea that a woman is a woman and you can't just become a woman because you feel a certain way in the inside and the right like I'm doing right now. I will just say it as it is, right? You are not a woman. I am sorry that you are suffering from a mental disorder. If you were suffering from any other mental disorder, I would treat you the same way. I want you to get better.

But because you are suffering from a mental disorder does not mean that I have to play pretend that I have a mental disorder and that I see things differently. I don't. I mean, Mark, I'll let you respond to what Candice says there. Let me just point out one thing. Let me just point out one thing.

There was a New York Times report today that said that one of the most effective Trump ads during the presidential race towards the end was the one where he had come Hamila Harris saying, she'll call you they then, I'll call you, you, you, or whatever it was. And that turned out to be, to the Trump campaign team, surprise, one of their most effective ads of the whole race, apparently, which suggests it is a much bigger issue than some Democrats clearly want people to think. I saw Joe Scarborough on this yesterday, very vocal, saying this trans issue has gone completely wrong.

The Democrats should not be supporting this kind of thinking. And Bill Clinton, apparently, according to the New York Times, he directly tried to get the Democrats in Carmelah Harris and her team to understand that they had to come out against this. But they didn't. And that is, I think, a big problem, particularly, as I say, the reason I think it's a big problem is if at the same time you're trying to say, I'm the person protecting women's rights.

One of the reasons why so many women didn't vote for her may because they just didn't buy it. Sorry, if you did, you wouldn't allow this. I respond to all those points. I think they're interesting points. I think, one, I'm not sure anyone, and again, I need to see the data to speak to this, just as we all should. I don't think anyone is voting for the president based on this issue. It could be an issue that tips to scale, but I think most people aren't voting for president based on this year.

I just don't think it's the priority issue of most people. I do, again, they may be. I'd like to see the evidence of that. I can't say definitively one way or the other, but it's never happened before in any election. So this would be the first time. So if it's true, just show me the evidence. And I'm happy to learn from it. But to the bigger point here, I think that we can say, you know, when I say women, I'm including cisgender women.

I'm including transgender women. When I say women, I'm including all of their experiences. When I want to protect women, I don't just want to protect cisgender women. I want to protect transgender women. When it comes to sports for me, for me, it's about a competitive advantage. If someone were a cisgender woman, which we've seen before, that had high. levels of testosterone, but were not trans, just had high levels of testosterone and gave a competitive advantage. I would say they also should not compete. It's not their transness. It's about keeping a

level playing field. And I believe as a general rule, and there might be some exceptions, but as a general rule, a person who is a trans woman in particular, we see this actually on the converse, when trans male boxers attempt to compete with a cis male boxers, the trans women lose. They lose badly, And honestly, I worry about their safety and their health. So it's not a safe playing field. But that doesn't mean that to acknowledge the womanness and the humanity and the fundamental dignity and legitimacy of trans identities is to play make-believe or to play fairy tales.

I think we can acknowledge their humanity. And most Democrats, finally, most Democrats, I think, who I speak to. And again, I'm not a Democrat, but I'm on the left. Most Democrats, I think share the position I have. I don't think most people, at least in my neighborhood, my community, I'll talk about black people in particular, think that trans folks should be playing in sports, right? In ways that create competitive disadvantage.

Well, let's agree on that central point. It's not a single person. Okay. Okay, hang on. We've got about three minutes left. Candice, we got... I feel so strongly about this. Yeah, I just feel strong about this.

Listen, I think you made your point strongly. I just want to ask you with just a few minutes left, what do you want Trump to do? He's got an incredible mandate here. What would you like to see him do, Candice, to really transform America? in a positive way? Yeah, absolutely.

Everything that he promised he would do. Secure the borders. I want him to get the illegals out of this country. It fundamentally is hurting the workers, particularly the blue-collar workers, is hurting black Americans. It's why you saw men moving away from this. And obviously Latinos are upset about it as well

to try to conflate being a legal Latino citizen with being an illegal, I think is something that has been upsetting to people. I very much want him to go after the deep state. I know I saw appears that you tweeted and many people have this sentiment, like, we should take the high road now, we should walk away from this, we shouldn't go after Hunter Biden. I think it's the exact opposite. He took the high road in his first, the first time that he was in office and look what they did to him afterwards. We need to root out this

corruption and truly go after the Department of Justice because if they will do this to a sitting president, how safe does an American feel? I want him to instantly, I mean, on first day in the office, to take care of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, you know, issue them both pardons. And I want to make sure the people that are around him do a very good job at deregulating this economic environment. I look forward to seeing what RFK Jr. does to the CDC. He has been on to them for a very long time, absolutely collapsed Big Pharma, what they did throughout COVID, the bureaucratic state that was a warning to what will come if we allow the state to continue to grow. And he's got to fundamentally shrink government, secure the borders, and root out the corruption

of the Department of Justice in the Deep State. And Mark, we've got about a minute. What would you want him to do? A bunch of stuff that he's not going to do. I'd love to see him hike the minimum wage to a living wage. I'd love to see him cut off funding to Israel. I'd love him to restore full funding to the Palestinian people through UNRWA and, in fact, increase that funding.

I'd love to see him sign a reparations agenda. I'd love to see universal health care for all. I'd love to see student debt forgiveness. I'd love to see him, you know, jump back into all the international climate agreements that he's pulled out from in the past and commit to staying in them. And I'd love to see him have a humane border policy.

We may disagree on what humane looks like, but we absolutely need one. So I'd love to see him do all that stuff. And if he does all that stuff, I will fight for a constitutional change to give him a third term. You know what? If he does all that stuff,

it's highly likely that the reason is he's transitioned into being Kamala Harris. And that ain't going to happen. Not on Trump's watch. Thank you both very much. Great debate. Appreciate it.