The Breakfast Club - INTERVIEW: Vivek Ramaswamy Talks Upcoming Election, Calls Out Kamala Harris, Why He Supports Trump + More

Episode Date: August 13, 2024

The Breakfast Club sit with 2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to discuss his views on the upcoming election. Ramaswamy dives into his support for Donald Trump. He also shares his thoughts on Vice President Kamala Harris and the current political landscape. Listen for more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wake that ass up in the morning. The Breakfast Club. Yep, it's the world's most dangerous morning show, The Breakfast Club. Charlamagne Tha God, Lauren LaRosa. Envy is on his way back from the Human and Harmony weekend in Shreveport. Jess Hilarious is on maternity leave. But we got a special guest here. Vivek Ramaswamy.

It's good to be back. Man, listen, I like when... I guess we can call you a politician now, right? I'm ex-politician. I was about, like, 10 months, 11 months. But you might run again. No, you quit. a politician now, right? I'm ex-politician. I was about like 10 months, 11 months. But you might run again at some point, right? I dropped out after I believe in trying to win. But when your moment isn't there, then you know what?

You move on to the next thing. I like when people come when it's not for any particular reason, right? Because a lot of times people come just because they're trying to sell you things, whatever, whatever. So I like to just see you all up here kicking it. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I'm back in, you know, I'm an entrepreneur by background. The year in politics is interesting. You learn a lot. I'm still reflecting on it, but I guess you could call me a politician for 11 months.

And listen, whether I agree with the things you talk about or not, I got to give props and props to do great speech at the RNC. Thank you. I appreciate that. Great speech. I appreciate that. Once you get the people with the call and response, when they were finishing your sentences, that's when you know you got something. We tried to be as effective as I could there. The part of that speech that I wish I had incorporated more

into my actual campaign was when I tried to talk through the speech, through the camera, to people at home who traditionally aren't viewed as part of the Republican base. And I think that that's something that we should all probably do a better job of, especially as a young person. It's a part of my speech was talking to millennials, talking to Gen Z. I actually think a lot of millennials, so I'm 38, I'm a millennial, are pretty jaded and disaffected with policies that Republicans enacted, right? The Iraq war. Well, you know what? It was a failure. We got to admit that brought to you

by the Republican party of 2004, the 2008 financial crisis, as well as the bailouts, the bank bailouts, which by the way, I was against before we got to remind people to say, you know what? Both parties, including the Republican Party, have been responsible for some of those policy failures. But you still can't be jaded about your country. And to Gen Z, my message is you'll be the generation that actually saves the country. You don't have to bend the knee to anybody's orthodoxy, not a Republican orthodoxy, not a Democratic orthodoxy. Think independently for yourself and so anyway i think that that was hopefully a productive message and a starting point to say we don't have to shackle ourselves through these partisan lenses i agree with that but why do y'all continue to bend the need of maggot in well what is maga right we could talk about that i think that there are many flavors of maga and the idea of making here's where here's my flavor of it okay i'm not somebody who tries to hearken back to a past and say, oh, I want to go back to the America that I grew up in or the America that I know.

Because you represent the future. I want to make America great. You represent what America should be and could be. I want to make America greater than it has ever been before. Yes. So I don't just want to make America great again. I want to make America greater than ever. And that's what our country has always been founded on, which recognize,

which involves recognizing that we're imperfect because we're human beings. We always fall short of our ideals. We wouldn't be human beings if we'd be a nation of, you know, I know you, Charlemagne, the God, but we'd be a nation of gods if we did not, if we did not fall short of our ideals, but we're not a nation of gods. We're a nation of human beings. And so we're imperfect, but we aspire towards excellence. We aspire towards a better nation. And so to me, I think that's an ambitious, hopefully unifying version of a MAGA message that I do believe in.

And I think people are hungry for, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that message. Because it feels like at the top of the ticket, you know, the Donald Trumps, and even now as Vice President J.D. Vance, they're always trying to take us back. That's why I do like the vice president slogan. We're not going back because it feels like. Yeah, look, I will say that when it comes to messaging, that was a pretty smart message. People are interested in the future. What I think is missing right now in the race,

it's frankly from both sides, is a hard discussion on policy. That's actually what we need. We're less than three months out. You don't think Kamala's doing a lot better at that than what we were seeing before from Biden? I don't think she has yet given us what her clear policy positions are. I think the fact of the matter is the economic policy. I was just on CNBC this morning before I came here. They're asking me, what do you think of her economic policy? She has not articulated what her economic policies are. Well, she wants to rebuild the middle class. She wants to make sure everybody has specific policies. I'll give you some examples, right? Specific policies. She sued the Obama administration when she was California's attorney general for granting fracking permits. That's getting natural gas out of the ground through getting hydraulic

fracturing of natural gas. Is she in favor of that now or not? Her advisors are saying she's no longer in favor of that. We don't know. Does she favor extending the Trump tax cuts? The Trump tax cuts, I think, helped a lot of people, middle class included. We just don't know whether she's in favor of that or not.

And I think Republicans, by the way, are making a mistake too. I don't think that going down the road of, I think both sides, calling the other side too. I don't think that going down the road of I think both sides calling this side weird. I don't think that's productive. Now, Republican responses of personal attacks in response. I think we would be better served in this election as Americans if for the next three months we have a vigorous debate on policy, which policies are better going to lift up Americans.

Yeah, I don't think we're not doing it yet. The reason I don't like the I'm not going to say up Americans. Yeah, I don't think... And we're not doing it yet. The reason I don't like the... I'm not going to say I dislike the term weird. I just think it undersells a lot of the damage that Republicans are doing to this country, just labeling it weird. But I think there's... It's not useful.

I think you want to go after the policies. Go hard in the paint. I believe politics should be about sharp elbows when it comes to policy debates. But when it comes to just saying that, oh, you're not normal, normal compared to what? Well, I think abolishing women's reproductive rights, you know, is a little bit more than weird. But here's where we should have the policy debate in that, because this is so interesting coming out of the Republican convention.

Donald Trump, to the ire of a lot of Republicans, is opposed to a national ban on abortion. So am I, by the way, and I said so in the Republican debate stage. I was in the minority last year when I say that I am opposed to a federal ban on abortion, just on constitutional principle, should at least leave it to the states. That made a lot of conservatives and a lot of Republicans upset. And yet it's a weird position to now adopt, where if you do listen to a lot of the Kamala Harris campaign, they say he will sign and enact a federal ban on abortion. That's actually just not true because like it or not, he actually takes heat from many in the conservative camp for his opposition to that ban. Why abolish Roe v. Wade? Why say things like you want to get rid of abortion pills? I mean, you say it's a Supreme Court decision, but he takes the credit for it.

He says, I'm the reason that this happened. Well, look, I think that there's a legal and constitutional question of whether the federal government should be involved in any of this in the first place. Because that's not freedom. I tend to come from a pretty, I tend to come from a pretty libertarian

leaning school of thought. I want the federal government to be doing basically as little as is required to make sure the country is secure and people are allowed to live their own lives. I think Republicans can own a message even of, you know what, to the LGBT community, the gay community, you're free to marry who you want, if you want, without the government standing in your way. But that also doesn't mean that men get to compete with women in women's sports,

something that's even relevant coming out of the Olympics. I agree. So the more we're focused on that type of policy debate, and here's a litmus test I'd give you. That wasn't a woman, though. I mean, that was a woman. The boxer, that's a more complicated case. It's intersex. XY chromosome, though, right? But I'm talking about actually people who have male sex

organs, people who have XY chromosomes that are competing in women's swimming competitions. Right? Those are debates we ought to be able to have. And the litmus test for both sides is this. Whether you support Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, can you make the case for your candidate without actually referencing the other side? So my challenge actually to a lot of the Kamala Harris supporters is the most of the case that I hear involve invoking Donald Trump. What is the case for Kamala Harris that does not involve referencing Donald Trump at all. I think that's

missing right now. I got it. And for Republicans, I'd give you similar advice, too. What do we stand for? Not just what are we against? What do we actually stand for? Offer that vision. And I think the country will be better off if both sides step up and do that. I agree with you. I think both parties need to be talking about nothing but the issues at this point, because people are out here hurting and people want to know how you're going to put money in their pocket and how you're going to keep them safe. Whoever can speak to those things to the next 80-plus days, that's who wins this election.

Mass illegal immigration, economic growth, and staying out of World War III. Who has the better vision to do each of those things? Do both parties agree on that? First of all, that's an open question. Where do we stand on mass illegal immigration? We don't really know what the Democratic position is. But assuming we agree on mass illegal immigration is a bad thing. Economic stagnation is a bad thing. And World War Three is a bad thing.

How do we solve those three problems? Whichever party offers the better solutions deserves to be elected. And that's the way I'm voting in the election as well. I think we have days and I think like when you use a term like weird, there speak like you talked about about, like in your, when you first began everything you wish you spoke to like the up and coming, like the people who are going to be next at solving some of these issues. Yeah. When you get on Tik TOK and when you get on Twitter, which a lot of people are getting their information from and are being

swayed and conversations are being swayed, even media swayed by that. Those are the terms that they're using. It's easy. It's digestible. And I think that, I think that it's a generational thing where you have to take what you guys are talking about and then partner with that weird. And I think that's where you're going to get your winner from either way. And I don't think that it's Donald

Trump, but I think that it makes sense what she's doing. And I think that she will hopefully get to those hard things, you know, because but she has to win the people over. She had to woo us first. And we're here. I think now is the past is past. I mean, I think a lot of people have issues with how she was selected i personally think going through that process people don't care about that right whether or not there was a coup staged on biden i've said this publicly to the republicans don't focus on that because it's up to the democrats to decide who they nominate right they've made that decision but she's also the vice focus on actual policy and i have some i have some serious differences with her but she's the vice president if a a president is not fit to lead anymore, she's the natural person to take over. Yeah, there is a real question around that, too, is who's leading

the country right now? We still have a country that's functioning between now and the election. And this is a question that the media has been surprisingly uncurious about, like in a very serious sense, not in some sort of philosophical sense. Who's actually running the country right now? It is entirely unclear what the answer to that question is. And just speaking as an American put the election to one side, I think that ought to be deeply concerning, too. We've got a president who, in some ways, it reminds me of the British monarchy a little bit, right?

You used to have a British monarch who actually ran the country. And at a certain point, it just became a ceremonial figure, all the pomp and circumstance that you hold up as a figure, but really just ends up becoming a figurehead, an aged king that might or might not suffer from dementia. That's effectively what the United States has become, which is part of why we see the level of weakness on the global stage, why we see the loss of self-confidence in this country for a country that you just have the pageantry of a monarch that isn't actually the functioning leader of the country. That, too, I think is a pretty big problem.

And Kamala Harris, I think, has an opportunity here. Whether she seizes it or not is a different question. If she steps up and is actually authentic about that question, says, you know what? We weren't particularly honest about where President Joe Biden was, and we deserve a government where the people in charge just tell you the truth. Say it like it is. You might like it. You might not like it. But I'm going to tell you what my beliefs are. And I don't want a bunch of lobbyists and bureaucrats around me wielding me as a pawn. And so here are my actual beliefs. And you know what? I might have said this

back in 2018 or 2019, but I changed my mind. I'm not going to pretend like I didn't say it. I changed my mind. Here's why I'm in a different place on fracking. Or here's why I don't favor nationalizing the health care system anymore. Because these are things she said in the past. It looks like she's, you know, her advisors are trying to say that she didn't support that anymore.

I think take the opposite approach. Just be totally upfront and say, you know what? Here's what I believe then. Here's what I believe now. Here's why I changed my mind. I'm not going to be anybody's puppet. I report to you, the people of the country. I'm different than Joe Biden because he was wielded as a puppet.

I think I'd be bold. You can't do that. And well, I think a lot of the next generation. They are all puppets. So mostly, actually, for most, well, you know, what's interesting about him. He plays the role of, you know, being this maverick who's draining the swamp, but he's a puppet. So I'll certainly give you the 2016 view.

Because get a credit where credit's due. And he might be a puppet for foreign interference. That's the problem. I think that that's. Puppet for Russia and China. So I think that the whole Russia hoax, that thing's played itself out. And that actually ended up being a little bit of mythology. But back in 2016, here's one of the things I like about Donald Trump.

Say what you will. In the Republican Party, it was complete orthodoxy to support the Iraq war, to say that that was a good thing. That was where the Republican Party was in 2015. And he was the only person on that debate stage that said this is idiotic, that we invaded the country that had nothing to do with 9-11 in the name of 9-11, that that was idiotic. And now it's the Republican Party position, at least most people, to accept that that was actually a bad idea. So if you're able to go into a room full, say it's a political party,

and tell them something that's different than what the majority of the people in that room believe, and then eventually they change their mind, that's a real mark of accomplishment. Now, I think Kamala Harris has an opportunity now because the opportunity she has is she didn't have to go through a primary. Going through a primary is interesting because it forces you to actually bend the knee to,

let's say, the far whatever wing of your own party and take criticism unless you do. She didn't have to do that. So she has an opportunity now to take advantage of that and say, I'm starting with a clean slate and I'm actually just changing the game for the system. I don't see her doing that yet. Maybe you're saying she can't do that. I don't know why she can't do that. If she's the actual president, she has an opportunity to step up and lead. But you know what? Just speaking as an American, I'm not voting for Kamala Harris. I'm going for Trump on policy. But if she came out and said, you know what?

Here's my stance on cryptocurrency. OK, Donald Trump came out with the Bitcoin policy. Here's my policy. Here's my position on AI. Here's my position on the border. You know what? I was the vice president, but Joe Biden did some things that I disagree with. Here's how I would do it differently. I would at least respect her for that. If she doesn't do that, that tells me actually it's not that she's some sort of ideologue or some communist or whatever. Some people level that critique. I don't think that's the real critique. I think the real critique is then you just become another cog in the system. And what I'm interested in, I'm interested in breaking that system. And I want the people we elect

to run the government to be the ones who actually run the government. Whether I agree with you or not, at least the person who was elected should actually be running the show. And I just don't believe that's the case in the United States today. Is that possible to do when you have these politicians who take all of this money? On both sides? No. That's a good question. Good point.

I'm pretty much. That's why I said she can't do it. She's raising all this money. Well, Democrats are Republicans. Can't do it. If you're taking all this money from lobbyists, how can you ever do that? Or from Super PAC, what I call the Super PAC Industrial Complex. So the thing is, actually, back in 2010, the Democrats used to be dead set against the rise of Super PACs. So remember, the corporations are not people debate that was around a case called Citizens United. What they effectively said is,

OK, if you can't beat them, join them. So now you have the amount of super PAC money flowing in to support Democrats actually is greater than that using to support Republicans. But they're saying, hey, if we got the money flowing in, then we're not going to if you can't beat the game, play the game. And I think both parties are worse off for it because the people who really determine the politician's stances aren't really the people of the country. It's the people who effectively fund the mother's milk of American politics. And I think that's bad for Democrats and Republicans in the United States of America alike. So I would favor a policy. I think Donald Trump or Kamala Harris would do well to come out with this to say, if you've worked in the government, you're banned from lobbying the

government for at least 10 years after you leave. Neither a candidate has adopted that position. I think it's a winning position. You might get a little more honesty then. I think you might get a little, that's a risk. To some people view that as a risk. I view that as an opportunity. But yes, I think you'd get a lot more honesty. I don't think, a small one. I mean, I don't think congressmen should be trading individual stocks or bureaucrats should be trading individual stocks. How does it benefit the public? That's the question. Does it serve the interest of the public? I fail to see how. Absent that argument, ban lobbying for 10 years after you leave office. Ban the trading of individual stocks if you're a government bureaucrat

regulating an industry. Say names, Vivek. You probably shouldn't be able to join that industry. Say names. Why you don't want to say Nancy Pelosi? Well, I mean, you know, because I don't like saying the things everybody's always... Nancy Pelosi is, of course, guilty of this, but I'm a Republican. It's easy to just pick on Nancy Pelosi on a given day. So I hate saying things that are piling on when other people are piling on. But yes, it's true. That includes Nancy Pelosi. Probably includes some Republicans, too.

But I think these are major changes that would have a lot of popular support. But people aren't able to say if your mother's milk of politics is effectively what keeps the the system functioning is the green pieces of paper that capture the system. So I think that's not a Republican message or Democrat message. It used to be a Democrat message, but it's not a Democrat message anymore. And one of the things that at least was cool about Donald Trump when he came around in 2016 is he actually was in 2016 on the debate stage the only person who said he would actually favor any super PACs, which I like.

And that's something that I think could be a winning message for either side if they're willing to take it up today. You think it's wise to go after the vice president's race? Or question Tim Walz's military background when you're trying to attract independents and moderates? So there's two different issues, two different issues. And let me sort of say what I think would be the wise side of each and what's not the wise side of each. Going after Kamala Harris for being a flip flopper or telling audiences what they want to hear, I think is a good line of attack because

we don't know what our policies are. So she said a few years ago, she's against fracking. Now she says she's not against fracking. A few years ago, she said she wanted to have a single payer healthcare system and a nationalized US healthcare system and abolish private health insurance. She raised her hand when they said, do you favor abolishing private health insurance on the debate stage? She raised her hand. Now her advisors are saying, she won't say, but her advisors are saying she no longer believes that. So I think it's an interesting line of attack to say, are you just going to tell people what they want to hear? Are you going to tell your people what you actually believe about yourself and who you are? That I think is an interesting line of attack. And that could include some cultural elements going after her for her,

what her racial identity is or isn't. I don't think that's a good line of attack, but the idea that are you somebody who's going to tell people your actual beliefs or you're just going to tell whichever audience is in front of you what they want to hear, that I think is valid. Tim Walz, going after him for any part of his military service to say that, oh, you didn't carry

a big enough gun on the front line of fire and therefore you didn't serve the country. That's not a good line of attack. But I think an interesting and worthy line of attack is saying that, did you lie about it? Right? There's no obligation in this country to serve in the military. It's honorable if you do.

But if you're going to say that you served in a war that you weren't in, then that goes back to the question of honesty. So draw those distinctions. Doesn't that deflect from what Tim Wall, the issue that he's actually brought up, which is there shouldn't be any military-style assault weapons on the streets in the hands of civilians, because that's really what he was talking about. To me, when you start bringing up. Well, I think I think there's a few different things going on in the Tim Walz situation. There is evidence in interviews and otherwise that he

suggested he served in Afghanistan when he didn't and that he actually did know before that he was going to be called to Iraq before he decided to actually go run for Congress. I'm not in the business of questioning his service at all. But when you're asking the question and you haven't heard me talk about this general topic in the media at all myself. But if you're asking me, is it fair game for Republicans to go after him for lying to the public? Yes. Is it smart or a good idea to go after him for military service? No. But I think that for lying to the public, for somebody who's going to be vice president of the United States, that is, I think, a worthy line of attack.

But it's still deflecting from the issue of gun violence. Well, my whole thing is, let's focus this on policy. Let's have a debate on the merits of policy and where you land. Now, Tim Walz, it's interesting. As a governor, you may or may not agree with the policies, but he is a governor who has increased the tax burden in Minnesota. He favors higher capital gains taxes for people who live in Minnesota. It's one of the highest tax states in the country.

It's not California or New York. It's a Midwestern state. Got by far the highest tax burden of anywhere in the Midwest. He is somebody who believes in a lot of the restrictions on fossil fuels. I don't know where you all are on that issue. I'm dead set against much of the climate change agenda because I think it leaves Americans of every political persuasion worse off. Tim Walz as a governor has been most one of the most aggressive. Some people might like it. People like me don't. But he's been one of the most aggressive on implementing climate change policies, even at the state level.

So those are legitimate lines of attack that I think we're not going hard enough on as Republicans because we're focused on other issues. I was going to say, well, back to Kamala. Do you think that because you said like you can't get to her hard policy, but everybody's having so much conversation about her race and what she said versus what she didn't say? I think this actually helps Kamala, to be clear. No, it does help. Even from a strategist perspective, from a Republican standpoint, she gives us a lot to focus on by way of policy criticism. We're actually missing that opportunity right now. So I'd like to see that change in the next three months. And I think the country would be better off for it. I also don't favor. I said this even when Joe Biden was running for president. So there's a pledge that the Republican Party required you to sign to be on the debate stage last year. So I did the Republican primary debate. It was called the beat Biden pledge. I said this is a nonsensical idea for two reasons. OK, one is I don't think

we're going to be running against Biden. Turns out that ends up being the case. But the second reason is we're not going to succeed for the country or at the ballot box by just railing against the radical Biden agenda. We have to stand for our own vision for the country. What do we actually stand for, not just what are we against? And so if we make that same mistake with respect to Kamala Harris, I don't think we're running against an individual candidate. I think we're running against a machine. And what I'd like to see as our vision is we want to go in and dismantle that machine. That's what draining the swamp was actually about. That's why

you had that dragon energy in 2016. And I think there's nonpartisan, bipartisan interest in saying that, you know what, we do live in a country where a bureaucracy crushes the will of the citizens. Go in and break that system. That's a powerful and I think unifying message. I'm not a big fan of going after just one individual candidate because it misses the point of what we're up against. For Kamala Harris's part, though, I think she owes the people of this country an answer. Where does she stand on nationalizing health care? Are you for it or are you against it? Where do you stand? This is a big one that people don't talk about affects small business owners, including black and white

business owners across the country. She favors what's called a tax on unrealized capital gains. What that means is even if you have a business, you know, you're a businessman, too, right? So you're operating a business, but take somebody who's maybe in a tougher position than you are. That means you have to pay taxes even when you don't have the cash to pay those taxes, because the government says that it's worth something and you have to pay 25 percent of that value every year. Well, what if you don't have the cash in your pocket that forces you to either sell your business, take out a loan to pay taxes? That's a formula for real economic calamity. She has consistently supported that. That's what we need to be talking about. Are you

still in favor of it? If so, why? Let's have that policy debate. And I think that hiding from those issues is something that leaves the American people holding the bag. She'll get to that, I'm sure, when the debate's coming and everything else. We only have three months. I agree with that. I want to ask you a thing about the flip-flopping, too. Isn't that what politicians do, though?

And what I mean by that is, J.D. Vance was calling Trump America's Hitler, right? But now he's, when it comes to Trump, he's the Hawk Tour girl. Like he's just, you know, he's sucking them off every chance he gets. And that's what a lot of y'all do. Like just politicians in general.

You hear so many different Republicans have said so many negative things about Donald Trump, but then soon as he becomes a nominee, everybody just falls in line. And normally they fall in line in unison and you can raise against the machine. It doesn't feel like Trump and Vance are like, it's not there.

So what do you call that? Is that flip-flopping? So here's what I will say is, is it fair game to press J.D. Vance hard on why he said certain things about Donald Trump before versus what his view is on Donald Trump today? Yes, I think that's fair game. And has he been pressed and has he answered for that? Yes, he has. What I would love to see is both candidates and Kamala Harris hasn't done

this yet. I'd love to challenge her to do it because I think it's good for the voters of the country. She hasn't sat down for one media interview of a hard pressing one on one variety yet. And she's actually the leading candidate now in many of the polls for U.S. president. So I just think we deserve a country where the people are willing to show up. She should show up here. She should show up on CNBC, where I was this morning, and actually engage in hard questions

about what her beliefs are. You saw J.D. say what you will on three shows yesterday, pressed on exactly that very issue. And I think that's good for the American people to then be able to make their own judgment. It's not your judgment or a journalist's judgment, but it's what people at home are able to see to assess. Do I actually believe somebody who believes they changed their

mind over the course of time? Kamala Harris might have changed her mind. I think it's OK. Flip flopping is one thing. Changing your mind thoughtfully is another. But you deserve to be questioned on it. And it's up to the voters to decide whether or not they believe you. Right now, we're not getting that chance. i i do think it is you know you're saying well we hopefully we're going to see that i'm not i'm not sure yet that we will it's been about a solid month that kamala harris has been the presumptive nominee we got the convention coming up what this coming week next week i think it is vital for the health of this country that the same treatment that the media gave Joe Biden in

that last few weeks after his debate, they didn't do that for three years. For three years, we missed that. The fact that it took that early debate and Donald Trump demolishing him in that debate for the country to suddenly wake up and say that Joe Biden is not a functioning U.S. president is actually a damning indictment of the entire media and its relationship to the political class. So we can't make that same mistake with Kamala Harris. I think the media needs to demand that she at least face the same kind of questioning

that, frankly, J.D. Vance and Donald Trump are getting right now. And then the public is it's up to them to decide. That's that's a functioning democracy. But you're not implying by her not doing the interviews and based off the way that Biden was treated in those last couple of weeks, you're not implying that you don't think she's competent to be the president of the United States, right? I'm saying the media is covering for her right now the same way they covered for Biden for three years. You think they're covering or you think that she's just using her own strategy? They're not paying this.

She's using a strategy. OK, I think she's using some smart. Which politicians do. That's fine. But I think it's the media's job now to cut through that strategy and say this person very well could be the president. The United States has at least a 50 percent chance right now, according to most forecasts of being the next president. She deserves to be questioned, not with kid gloves, but questioned with the gloves off on what exactly her policy vision is for the country. Until that happens, I think the voters are hiding in the dark.

And that's what allows the machine to work, because we know she's she's questioned a lot on that behind closed doors. Who's funding the campaigns of both parties? You know, behind closed doors, a lot of donors ask a lot of questions. That's how you raise hundreds of millions of dollars in just one month. The voting public deserves that same level of transparency. And one of the things I will say what you will about, you know, you could criticize either side. I like that Donald Trump showed up at the Libertarian Party Convention. Right. That's a third party.

They had a convention. I actually spoke there. He spoke there as well the next night. I like that he spoke to the National Association of Black Journalists in Chicago. I'd love for Kamala Harris to show up at the National Association of Black Journalists. Well, she wanted to, but they wouldn't let her do the virtual thing. She does have a day job. She's still vice president. No, but the day job is running. Come on. At this point, she is going

full-time, reading off a teleprompter at the rallies, the same thing four times a day. She should show up for that interview. If Donald Trump sits down with the National Association of Black Journalists, I'm sorry, a scheduling excuse is not a valid reason for the competitor to also show up. Not to cut you off, I'm sorry. If Kamala sits down with for the don't we know what competitor to also show

up but if if common not to cut you off i'm sorry if kamala sits down with nabj we know where she's going conversation wise right i think it's honestly i don't necessarily true i don't think that's true i think that i think the person who did that interview for donald trump if they had taken the same approach with respect to kamala harris i think that'd actually be pretty good conversation for the country i don't know if she would i want to see her i want to see the vice president on fox news i think she should go across the room. Even better. Even better. Right. So one of the things I liked, I mean, Donald Trump went to the Bronx. People could say it wasn't the real Bronx or whatever, but he showed up in the Bronx. He showed up in South

Bronx, showed up in inner cities in the country. Even in my own campaign, I went to the south side of Chicago, went to a room full of what? Ninety five percent black, ninety five percent Democrat. It's not a traditional Republican primary location. I went to Kensington in the inner city of Philadelphia. Speaking as a former candidate myself, I could tell you those trips had an impact on me, right? It had an impact on my view of a national unity that I believe is possible in this country that I wouldn't have had if I hadn't showed up there. I'd love to see Kamala Harris go into rural Mississippi, go into Alabama,

go into showing up at a Fox News moderated town hall. Well, she does do that. Now, we can't act like she doesn't do that. I mean, even the past week, she hit all of the battleground states and she's actually hitting the street, which I think in a lot of ways is more effective right now than sitting down and doing an interview.

With hostile questioning, though, is not. I want to see her answer questions from people who disagree with her. That's what the country's founded on. So face off with the people you disagree with. So like town halls you mean? Yeah, town halls and or hostile journalists. And here's why.

When you stop talking to people... Not hostile, hard-hitting. Yeah, hard-hitting. Because you see black women in a hostile situation. Did you see that when you went to places? She won't know how to handle it. She won't be good. I hope so. I hope so for the country. but here's what i will say is when you stop talking to people who disagree with you it becomes a lot easier to demonize them

and that's and that's what happens in the country so say what you will about you know i know we probably have different views on who we're voting for this cycle but i will say more so than most republicans and in this cycle more so than the Democratic opponent, Donald Trump has talked to people who disagree with him, faced off more than Kamala Harris has. And I think she has a couple months left to see if she has it or to level up. If you want to sit across the table from Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, then you better be willing to sit across the table from your fellow Americans who disagree with you and face that questioning, too. And that's my challenge to her. If she does that, I'm not going to vote for her, but because I disagree with her and face that questioning too. And that's my challenge to her. If she does that, I'm not going to say I'm going to vote for her, because I disagree with her on the policies,

but I will respect her as a candidate in a way that I don't until she actually does it. You're not just going to support your fellow Indian because she's an Indian? Well, you know, I would say that one of the things that's actually funny, you bring that up in the, I believe we're all American, we've got to vote in policy, of course. A lot of the Indian American community is a little bit disappointed or a little bit offended, at least at the fact that she doesn't really own that part of her identity anymore. It's not true. Why do you say that?

The way she did before, right? I'm not saying that. She owns both. Don't blame the messenger, but I'm telling you, just you can take it as a fact, that a good, at least in my read of it, I think a lot of Indian Americans do have a little bit of disappointment about that. My whole view is I don't like identity politics, period, right? One direction or another. We got to revive our shared American identity. Okay. And so if we are really committed to the ideals of this country, I think we should focus on what policies are you advancing regardless of your race, regardless of your skin color.

So whether she's dealing with attacks or she's dealing with leaning into it, I'm against it in both forms. Forget the identity politics around the board and focus on how you're going to have policies that lift up all Americans. That's what I favor talking about. But since you bring it up, I'm just, don't shoot the messenger here.

I think there are some Indian Americans out there that do feel some sense of offense about it. Well, I want to tell them, Indian Americans, that's not true. She claims both sides, black and Indian. And this is my last question, because I know you got to go. What were your thoughts when Ann Coulter told you that she wouldn't vote for you because you're Indian? She told you that verbatim. Yes, you are an Indian, is what she said. So look, I think it's shameful. I disagree with it deeply. But one of the things

that I think we need more of in this country, the only thing worse than that is her not saying it but that actually being a true fact for why many people wouldn't vote for me but you know it's a lot of people in the party and let's talk about the party who look at you like that though i mean it's the same party that would make racist jokes about you draw the racist cartoon well here's one of the things i actually haven't i haven't mentioned this before one of the things that bothered me a little bit in the campaign is maybe it's because of my style or whatever a lot of people in the Republican primary base would say, oh, he's just telling us what we want to hear. And I don't think that he actually means it or believes it. I got that a lot, actually.

I thought about it after the race. If I really wanted to tell you what you wanted to hear, do you think I would tell you that I'm a Hindu who practices with my beliefs without changing or shortening my last name. So if I'm going to stick to that, you have a lot of politicians in American politics, including other people on that debate stage that have changed their name, some who have evolved their religion. I haven't done any of those things. So if I wanted to tell you something that was going to make it easier for me to win, those would be the number one and two things that you would do. But my view is you got to be who you are. And I am somebody who has my own beliefs. And I am proud of not only my faith, because it guides me to make the decisions I do, but who I am and how I got to where I am. Now, I think in

the long run, and I've met many people in the Republican primary base across the entire country. I think in the long run, people do respect that level of authenticity and commitment. And so are there going to be a lot of people who on either side of the spectrum to say, I can't vote for you for some silly reason? Sure. But I'm not going to be a victim over that. You know what? If I'm running to be president of the United States, I can't blame the media. I certainly can't blame the voters. It's my job to actually give people a reason to say, you know what? You might've believed what you did before, but here's your reason to think about it a little bit differently. And I think we did bring along a lot of people who believed they could have never voted for a Hindu

who said that, you know what, if he shares the same value set that I do and is actually going to advance the country and allow me to be religiously free, I think there were a few people who we brought along that way, more than a few people over the course of the campaign and you know i think one of the things i learned is i preach i preach this to the left all the time right is that i won't say that you're the only person who's responsible for your destiny because there's always always external factors that hold you back external prejudices or whatever you and i in our last conversation talked about this a lot in the black community, but you could say the same thing in this context. You're talking about me and my race for president. Okay. Maybe you're not, you're not the sole determinant of what you achieve in life.

Fine. But the most important determinant of what you're able to achieve in life is still you. There are other factors, but the number one factor that determines whether or not you succeed or achieve your goals is you. So for me, now I've got to preach that hard truth to myself. Are there a lot of factors that were uphill factors for me in this race, including my last name being harder to remember or to pronounce, the fact that I'm Hindu, which you haven't had a Hindu president before, or there are a lot of other reasons why? Sure. But the number one reason why I wasn't successfully elected comes still down to me. And I got to look and confront myself in the mirror and ask myself what I could have done better to succeed.

And so same message, I'm going to preach to the left or preach to the other side. I'm going to try to practice in my own life as well. If you want to be the leader of the country, it's up to you to level up and actually explain to people why you believe that your vision is going to be the leader of the country, it's up to you to level up and actually explain to people why you believe that your vision is going to be best for them. And you know what? It was a hell of an experience and I wouldn't trade it off for anything.

It's been probably the most challenging but most enriching thing I've done in my life was the last year of traveling this country, meeting people of all creeds, all political persuasion, all races, strengthened me. And you know what? Whatever I do next, I'm going to be stronger for it. And we're figuring that out right now.

So with all that being said, you think the Republican Party will have a person of color as a presidential nominee at some point? I think it's entirely possible. Yeah. I think it's entirely possible in the near future. I mean, if you look at even 2016, Ben Carson at one point led in the polls. If you look at 2012, number one for a little while was Herman Cain as well. And that's 2012. I think we're even different in 2024 relative to 2012. Frankly, even in the race that I had, I mean, I was running briefly ahead of Ron DeSantis at the early parts of the debates that put me at number two next to Donald Trump at certain points in the race. So were there some headwinds for me? You got Ann Coulter's comment. Was that representative of a broader current? Yeah, that exists. But was that the reason why I did not succeed or am I going to pin the blame on that? No, I think it comes down to everybody has their own unique challenges. People have biases of all kinds. It comes in a lot of different flavors. But if you're running to lead the country, it's up to you to overcome that.

Is that surmountable? Yeah, I believe it is. And do I think that at some point in our lifetime, you're going to have somebody who is not a white man be the Republican nominee and successfully elected U.S. president as a Republican? I think definitely. I think overwhelmingly likely. I think they should have made Nikki Haley the nominee this year. I disagree with that.

R put her as vice president. It would have been a tougheraley the nominee this year. I disagree with that. I put her as vice president. It would have been a tougher ticket to beat than this. I disagree with that based on ideology because she and I have deep-seated different views about our appetite to enter a major conflict. Your view is different than Trump. I have a lot of different views than Trump. You don't really like Trump's politics, Vivek.

Well, I've been very clear that I don't agree with Trump on 100% of policies. I ran for president. For a year, I was making clearly the case of where I have some slightly different policy views than Donald Trump. Hopefully that makes actually my reason for endorsing him at least credible to the people who followed me during the race to say, I'm not changing my policy positions. I still don't agree with him on 100% of policies, but I'm voting for him nonetheless, because I think he's going to grow the economy

and solve the illegal mass migration crisis, which I do think is hurting this country. And I think those are the two issues that matter most to the next four years of our development. I think about the future. This actually we don't cover this ground. Maybe you guys aren't interested in this either. But I think there are different flavors of America first beneath the surface simmering right now. I think it's interesting. It's in the very early stages of this on one strain of America first. It's the idea that we need to protect American manufacturers from the effects of foreign price competition, that we need to protect American labor from the effects of legal immigration into the country. I'm not so much in that camp. I'm in the camp of America first that says the federal bureaucracy is actually the main thing holding back this country.

So I don't want to replace the left wing nanny state with a right wing nanny state. I want to actually shut down the nanny state. I don't want to replace the left wing regulatory state with a right wing regulatory state to advance so-called good goals. I actually just want to dismantle the regulatory state. And that's an interesting, there's two different currents within even the America first wing of the Republican Party. And I think we're going to be at our best if we have those debates in the open. In the same way that I would say about a Democrat, somebody who has different views than me, but is actually willing to defend them and say, this is my ideology.

That's great. We are allowed to have different ideologies. But what I don't have a ton of patience for is a lot of politicians who refuse to acknowledge that they have an ideology or they don't have one at all. And that goes to my challenge, not just to fellow Republicans, but to Kamala Harris as well. It's not that she's a Marxist. I have no idea if she's a Marxist. Just tell me what your actual beliefs are so we can have an honest debate. That's when the country's best off. And you're right. You know, within the Republican Party, I do represent a set of views where I don't agree with 100 percent of what a lot of other prominent Republicans say. But for my part, I'm willing to defend that. And you know, I'm biased, but I think this idea of taking on the regulatory state,

personally, I do think that is the way of the future for even the Republican Party when you play this forward, you know, four, eight, ten years down the line. Vivek Ramaswamy, y'all. Always a pleasure, sir. Good to see you guys. I like when you pull up. Let's just, you know, keep the conversation going. See what happens. Yeah, I love it. Absolutely. Thanks. It's The Breakfast Club. Wake that ass up.

In the morning. The Breakfast Club.