TRIGGERnometry - ‘Democrat Elites Just Want Power’ - Tulsi Gabbard

Episode Date: June 5, 2024

Tulsi Gabbard is an American politician and United States Army Reserve officer. She was a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 United States presidential election, before announcing in October 2022 that she had left the Democratic Party to become an independent. She was the U.S. representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021. She is the author of the New York Times bestseller, ‘For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind’, available here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CL15KR1N/ Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | [e-mail] | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Four years ago, you were on stage attempting to become the Democratic nominee for president. Hillary Clinton and many others calling me essentially a traitor to my country, a Russian asset. But it's something, it is a tried and true playbook that they continue to turn to. Obviously, they did with Donald Trump in 2016. I mean, you talk about a rigged system. This is what a rigged system looks like. They want control and they want power. Who's in charge of this country, Tulsi?

because I'm going to be honest with you, because it's definitely not Joe Biden. It can't be. The man I see on television is not the same person that I knew and spoke to and spent time with. These are people who are operating out of fear of losing power. Why? If you're 80 years old, how much more fucking power do you need?

Tulsa Gabbard, welcome to Trigonometry. Finally. It's a real pleasure to have you on the show. I'm so grateful. I've heard about you guys so much. I met you, Francis, a few months, six months ago maybe. Yeah, indeed. Yeah, we met at the mothership.

The comedy mothership. Yeah. It was great. So let's get straight to it. Four years ago, you were on stage attempting to become the Democratic nominee for president. You dropped out, you endorsed Joe Biden. Here you are four years later. You've written a book.

And part of the reason that you've written the book is to talk about the fact that you think the Democrat Party is controlled by, in your words, woke warmongerers. Yes. You stood in for Tucker Carlson on his show. it's been quite a journey in a very short period of time you know the concept of the red pill you seem to have taken the bottle and been swigging away for for some time now what happened um you know i i've always been a very independent-minded person uh when i was first elected to congress in 2012 i um i was surprised by what a huge welcome i got from not only leaders in the democratic party in Washington, but, you know, a lot of big figures in the mainstream media and so forth.

I didn't have any party support or backing or anything at all as I ran what was a very tough race for Congress. And so, you know, to be invited a week or two after I was elected to go and speak at the National Democratic Convention during prime time was unexpected. Great opportunity. But while I was there at the convention, I was surprised because there were people. Oh, Tulsi Gabbard, she's the rising star of the Democratic Party and all of this stuff. In hindsight, looking back, it was like, okay, well, I checked a lot of the, you know,

kind of the identity politics boxes. You think it was about diversity, that? Yes. Yes. And I think that they thought that, and it continued, you know, I was invited to the White House Correspondents dinner, I think the first year I was there. And I remember walking out of votes one day and one of my Republican colleagues

who'd been in Congress for at least five or six years before me, He's like, Tulsi, like, what's going on? He's like, I've been here much longer than you, and I've never been invited to that. And I like, I don't know what this, okay. I don't know, I was like, you go. You can go if you want. But I think that they thought that I was going to be

someone who was drawn in to kind of the red carpet that they laid out before me and would allow myself to be a puppet or allow myself to do. just be someone who will follow the talking points and kind of cheer the raw, raw lines that everybody uses, but very quickly found even within the first six months of my being in Congress back in 2013, that that was not the case. The first turning point, and I get into this in my book for Love of Country, how when President Obama announced in the summer of 2013 that he was going to come to Congress and ask for authorization to go and launch an attack in

Syria in what would become kind of the first big volley of a regime change war there, I was after doing my analysis and doing my due diligence, I was the first Democrat to come out very strongly in opposition to President Obama's proposal and gave very well thought out reasons why, both based on my experience as someone who had been deployed to the Middle East twice in the military, but also I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time. and I, you know, did my research, went through all of the briefings, and really actually sincerely listened to the case that they were making and concluded that this was not, that this would lead to yet another quagmire

in the Middle East with no clear objective and no case for why this was in the best interest of the American people. Immediately got a call from the White House, basically, in essence, saying, how dare you go against your president? How dare you go against your party? And that was the first of what would become many of those kinds of decisions where they, the Democrat elite realized like, okay, she's not going to be one of the people who just, you know, go along to get along, climb the political ladder to try to advance her political position. And so, you know, going down the path there of my run for president in 2020, you know, I was making the case to the American people in two main ways. Number one is that the Democratic Party needs to go back to being the party of JFK,

needs to go back to being the party that really sought to bring Martin Luther King's dream to life, being the party of the little guy, the party that celebrated free speech. And what I saw through that experience and what I personally experienced, was that the Democrat elite had no interest in any of that, and were directly hostile to that kind of change that I sought to bring about. I also spoke over... Tulsi, can I just interrupt you now? Why are they so hostile to that change?

Because the way you're saying it, I go, well, that makes complete sense, and it would actually make the party far more electable, because you're appealing to the ordinary man and woman on the street. Which increasingly over time, you know, a recent Gallup poll showed 43% of Americans are not affiliated with either party. They want control and they want power. That is what drives them and that's what motivates them even at the cost of undermining the Constitution

and taking away basic fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of expression. They want to be able to control who has a voice and who doesn't. And they have increasingly escalated their the tools that they are using in order to meet that end. Well, that's something that I think we can all see with our own eyes, but I think what's interesting about having you on the show to talk about it is you were on the inside.

Yeah. Can I ask you, please don't be offended by this. I don't mean it as an offensive question. Do you think you were naive going in? Do you think you... There was a bit of naivete when I made my decision to run for president. I figured, like, hey, look, I know. I will be, this is a long shot.

I am the definition of an underdog in this race. There's no way I'll be able to raise the amount of money that a Joe Biden or a Kamala Harris would be able to raise. But I thought at least in this Democratic Republic, at a minimum, I will have just as fair a shot as anyone on that debate stage

to make my case to the American people and allow them to do what we do, what we're supposed to do in this country. They will get to make the decision. That's it. that I discovered that to be a false assumption the day I announced my candidacy. The very day I announced my candidacy as I was walking up on the stage to make that announcement in Hawaii, NBCNews.com put out a smear piece on me, started planting the seeds of suspicion and doubt like, oh, there's something weird going on with Tulsi Gabbard. The Russians are really interested in her. And this, of course,

became something that was a common refrain, not only for me, you know, Hillary Clinton and many others, calling me essentially a traitor to my country, a Russian asset, but it's something, it is a tried and true playbook that they continue to turn to. Obviously, they did with Donald Trump in 2016.

They do it with Tucker Carlson. They do it with Bobby Kennedy. They do it with anyone who they deem as a political threat. And so what I saw throughout that experience, On the debate stage, for example, it happened the first debate and in every debate after that. On average, in a two-hour-long debate,

I got about six minutes of speaking time. And it didn't matter that after that first debate, I was the most searched candidate of the night, which is what I had hoped for. The same happened again with the second debate. Nothing changed. It just got worse, ultimately. So not only limiting the exposure

of different Democratic candidates to voters through limited time on the debate stage, but actually working in a concerted way with big tech and the big mainstream propaganda media to control what information voters saw about the candidates that were running in that election, really revealing in real time, I mean, you talk about a rigged system,

this is what a rigged system looks like. You can say, well, voters are the ones who make this decision. but you've got to understand the context with which they're making that decision. If the information that they're getting when they type in who is Tulsi Gabbard and Google decides to push certain information that is less than flattering at best, but complete false accusations and smears, which is what they did, then, you know, they're tilting the scales. When you have CNN, for example, every candidate running for president at that time got at least one. televised town hall on CNN. Most had multiple. I had one. And I didn't find out until a friend of mine called me. They said, you know, CNN has a digital library where you can go and you can go and rewatch

these town halls of the different presidential candidates. Why isn't yours on there? Well, they obviously took it down. And I was the only candidate who had a town hall that they actually took that down off the library. So it was little things and it was big things that made it very clear. They had made the decision of which candidates were acceptable to them for the American people to choose from and which were not. Your frustrations with the Democrat Party, I think, widely shared and entirely understandable. The problem as an outsider with the American system is it's not like the other side is perfect either. No. And yet you are now in a position where you're effectively backing Donald Trump, as I understand it. Is that fair?

made any endorsements. Oh, you haven't. Okay. But I have been and continue to be very clear and outspoken, and it really is one of the major takeaways of my book, is how and why allowing President Biden and the Democrat elite to remain in power will result in the further erosion of our freedom and the loss of what we know and love about America. We've seen such an abrasant abuse of power coming from this administration, weaponizing the Department of Justice, undermining the rule of law, interfering with our democracy,

trying to limit who we're able to vote for in this election. There are so many different examples at this point that if they're allowed to remain in power and are reelected in November of this year, they will only continue to rapidly escalate what they're doing because they will run around the country

saying, hey, you as voters have given us a mandate. You've told us that we were obviously doing a good job and we're going to continue to do this. And censorship, an undermining of free speech, these types of things will only continue and get worse. Sure. I hear you. What I'm getting at, though, is I'm not sure that if and when President Trump becomes president, again, let's say that happens, that all of this will magically go away. Oh, no. So this is from an outside perspective of someone who loves America and wants this country to be successful and flourish and be great. It doesn't seem like you've got great choices, is what I'm getting at, which is interesting given that America is all about having choices

and food and drink and whatever, right? You seem to have ended up somehow in a position where you've got this choice between two very old men, neither of whom is that popular, let's be honest, with the whole country, both quite divisive and polarizing at this point. What does America go from here? We have to see the world through very clear. We have to be very clear-eyed about what we're facing. And between, if you compare the record of President Biden and President Trump, on key issues that are directly impacting us in America today, there's not much like gray area where there's overlap between the two of them. when you look at issues like border security,

when you look at things like we were talking about this a little bit earlier, about Title IX and how Title IX was created in America to make sure that women and girls have a level playing field in sports and an education. President Biden completely destroyed Title IX through a backdoor rule change, didn't even go through Congress. It was passed into law by Congress over 50 years ago if he and his administration wanted to change it as they do. to include transgender, which completely takes away equal opportunity and a level playing field for women and girls,

they should have made the case to the American people and done it through Congress. That's the way our system of governance is set up. Instead, they backdoor this through a rule change that has now made it so that little girls will be forced into a bathroom with little boys who say, well, I'm a girl now. if you look at our education system as a whole, if you look at our economy, if you look at what's happening on the foreign policy front, there are clear distinctions between the record of Joe Biden and Donald Trump. And so that's where in my book I encourage people to be very clear-eyed about the consequences of many of these policies that are, you know, that are undermining our security, our freedom and the rule of law in our country. and make a decision accordingly. Who's in charge of this country, Tulsi? Because I'm going to be honest with you. I don't know a lot about the government,

but I know it's not George, George Biden. He's definitely no George Bush, man. It's definitely no George Bushman. I had a Joe Biden moment while saying Joe Biden's name. Because it's definitely not Joe Biden. It can't be. You know, he is surrounded, he is surrounded by people who are alumni

of President Obama's administration, and alumni of Hillary Clinton from when she was Secretary of State and obviously her campaign. He is claiming and his record is being touted as, quote, unquote, the most progressive presidency in our country's history. You know, there are clearly some cognitive challenges that Joe Biden puts on display. but I refuse to remove responsibility from him because he is the president of the United States. Have you met him? I know him.

You know? Yeah, I've known him for many years. Can I ask you a very unpleasant question to ask about some? I always have a tremendous amount of respect for older people, and it's never something I enjoy talking about, but when someone's running a country, you kind of have to ask. And who wants to continue running the country. Correct.

When we see cognitive issues in the media, it's a 15-second clip. I don't know what the hell is going on. Maybe he's starting, I don't know. Are those issues real? The cognitive decline. So I have not met with him or had a conversation with him since he was elected as president. So I'll just, that's the truth.

I saw him many times, obviously, and had many conversations with him through that 2020 presidential campaign. We were often in the same places. And the man I see on television is not not the same person that I knew and spoke to and spent time with in 2020 or the years prior to that. Because we look at that. And I say that both in, you know, kind of the delivery in the halting speeches and the, what do you call it, the fumbles or the bumbles or whatever, you know, he's reading the teleprompter and, you know,

the most recent one where he was like, pause and last. name and reading instructions on the teleprompter instead of actually just communicating. There's there's all that kind of stuff, but I also mean that in the substantive sense that Joe Biden was, his campaign was built upon the fact that, yeah, he's kind of boring. But he's a, you know, a common sense-minded person and he can relate to people and he can talk to people. And he was seen as more of a moderating force that had, he was touted as the guy who could bring the country together. and heal the divisive wounds that existed in the country. He has not done that. He has done the exact opposite of that,

almost from the very day that he took office. So it's in both senses, and this is why I refuse to let him get away with just like, oh, well, you know, he's just old. He is responsible for those he has chosen to surround himself with and for the decisions he has made in the policies that he is pushing in this country that are bad for our country and our democracy.

I quite agree with you. And for somebody who is not an American, to see Joe Biden speaking, look, some people, you know, people make jokes. I personally find it terrifying. This is the most powerful country in the world. We are in a period with ever greater instability when it comes to geopolitics,

and you've got a man who seems unable to string a sentence together. I fail to see the humor in that, and I find it profoundly worried. I am also extremely worried. I'm not running for office, but I care very much about our country. I've dedicated my life in different ways in serving our country

and defending freedom and security. I will do everything that I can to make sure that whether it's him or... And this is again where people are saying, well, what if, you know, maybe Joe Biden gets replaced, whether it's by Kamala Harris, or maybe he drops out at the last minute at the convention. They bring in somebody completely different and new.

My point to voters as I travel and I speak to people is don't allow yourself to be distracted by that because ultimately Kamala Harris arguably would be even worse and more dangerous than Joe Biden. But whoever they would put in place there would continue the very same anti-freedom, anti-constitution policies that they have executed. I wrote a little song to remind you,

Choice Hotels gets you more of the experiences you value. The Canberia Hotels got it all. A rooftop bar, have a ball. Bring a date, your squad, or even your mom. Book direct at choiceotails.com. Why would she be worse and more dangerous? Because that's quite a bold statement. She is, for a few reasons.

I find her to be wholly unprepared, and incapable of doing the job. I have zero trust and confidence in her ability to lead our country. I have zero confidence in her ability to be the vice president. She's not delivered in any of the areas that she has been tasked with,

foremost among them, border security. The most dangerous thing is that she... This is personal to me. I've served now in the military, over 21 years. I'm in the Army Reserve now and a commander of soldiers to see Kamala Harris as commander-in-chief would guarantee that we would end up in at least one, if not many, wars that are counter to our country's interests and counter to the interest of just peace and prosperity in the world because she and people like her will feel the need to prove

her strength. And if you're the commander in chief and you're Kamala Harris, the way that she would do that is by, well, let's go and knee-jerk reaction, go and drop bombs on this other country. Use our military, my brothers and sisters in uniform, us, to be that show of strength, which is, you know, maybe for her people like her an exercise that they, kind of a theoretical exercise or an easy decision to make. But for those of us who have lived through this, it impacts very real people's lives, those who serve in uniform as well as our families.

And our lives are worth more than some politician who's trying to act strong and look like they can handle tough decisions. But do you think that she's a diversity hire, that they put her there because they wanted to show, this is a woman of color, and the Democrat Party believes in, you know, putting forward people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, because this is a new America. Do you think she was there?

You know, obviously I wasn't privy to any of those conversations, but if I remember correctly, Joe Biden himself said that he would absolutely only, like, he would only choose a woman, and then I think that was narrowed down to he would only choose a black woman. So to me, and this is something when I was campaigning against Hillary, Clinton in 2016, I had people in the media telling me, like, how can you do this as a woman? How could you not support this candidate who may be the first female president of the United States? Like, this is pretty offensive to your gender.

And my response to them was, like, I am completely offended that you think I am reduced to my body parts and that I don't have the intellectual capability to actually look at a person's record and make my decision about whether to support or oppose based on what kind of president they would be. Like it's, it's so, uh, tell us how do we get here? How do I'm serious? How did we get here? You talked about, see, I, I like progress. Progress is good, right? I think we all like progress. Yeah. You said, Joe Biden says, talks about how his administration is the most progressive administration and history. And I instinctively inside went, oh, because, Progress now means hating men, hating white people,

picking people on the basis of their skin color, exactly the opposite of Martin Luther King, his dream. Men can be women, you know. It's the opposite of progress. It's literally the opposite. How did this happen? How are we here? You know, it's people in leadership positions

who operate from a place of fear, rather than a place of strength that is grounded in the founding principles of our country and the examples that have been set forward by people like Martin Luther King. And they're so afraid of being labeled by the fringe activist, the so-called woke activists within the Democratic Party, that, and especially over these last few years, especially since 2016, when, you know, it wasn't called it back then, but this whole Trump derangement syndrome caused otherwise,

you know, sensible, thoughtful people to just throw reason out the window as a reaction, I think, to Trump. And so we are where we are. And it is, I hope that more and more Americans are seeing this for what it is and how even those with good intentions, well, let's, you know, we should be kind

and everyone should be able to live their lives, which I agree with. Everyone, every adult in a free country should be allowed to live their lives in the way that they choose. Whether I like it or not, go live your life. You may not like the choices I make in my life. That's my business, not your business.

But we live in a time now where I was just a friend of mine dropped me off here and she does not have anything to do with politics. She works in corporate America. And I was like, oh, what meeting are you going to? She's like, oh, she was about to say we're going to an all-hands meeting. She's like, oh, but I just found out we're not allowed to say that anymore. We're not allowed to call it an all-hands meeting.

Like, okay, what in the world is like, who could be offended by that? People without hands. Yes. Yes. So they're not allowed to call it an all-hands meeting anymore. Well, I'm relieved. Had this one been weighing on you? This is progress.

The handless community need to be protected. They need our help. Yeah. It's just insanity. Do you pinch yourself sometimes? Sometimes I look at the news and I just go, I have no fucking idea what's going on. I unfortunately, I have been through so much of this for so long that it just doesn't surprise me anymore. Because these are people who literally have allowed themselves to go insane.

or even if they are still clear-headed people, they are so terrified of being excoriated and criticized and smeared and attacked like I have been by the Democratic Party, that they're more than happy to just like remain silent, if nothing else, or just, you know, give the, hey, thumbs up, even though they know in their heart that this is not good.

It's not good for our country. It's not good for our society. We are not actually making. progress as a country. One of the things I wanted to ask you about, Telsie, is something that strikes me about you personally. There's lots of policy stuff we want to talk to you about as well. But the way the conversation about men and women has been had over recent years really troubles

me. And one of the things I really like about you is you are able to be strong and confident and make an impact without losing femininity. You have grace. I even worry about saying the things that femininity traditionally is associated. with, but you have them, right? So how do you see that discussion about men, women, women's roles, men's role, et cetera, in our society today?

So I want to say a couple of things on this, because I think it's important in a general sense, even stepping outside of politics. And it's something that I've experienced in the military as well as in politics, where women who work in fields that remain predominantly male, you know, you often walk in the door and you're already operating at a deficit. Not with everybody, but there's often a perception of like, okay, like, especially in the military is like, okay, like, how tough are you, really? And so I was part of a military training event recently where there's a fellow female officer

who was about to take command of a unit as part of the conversation of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, how does a woman leader make a good first impression as you're coming in? You are the commander of hundreds of soldiers and they're all looking at you thinking whatever they're thinking. How do you make that strong first impression? And she was, and again, this was a closed room. It was amongst peers and it was a great open dialogue. But her first thought was, you know what, I'm going to go in and I'm not going to smile. I'm not going to laugh. I'm not going to joke around with anybody for at least a month so that they know that I'm business, I'm tough, I'm strong. And, and, you know, I just shared my experiences with her. I was just like, be yourself. Be yourself. You are

confident in your capabilities. Yes, she said, of course. You are able to take on this job and kick ass at it. Yes, absolutely. Be yourself. When it's time to deal with serious things, be serious. you know, make a joke and laugh or every now and then, you know what I mean? Just be yourself. And I think, you know, a parallel exists in politics where people feel like they have to sound a certain way or talk a certain way to be seen as a politician. And when that happens too much, and I see it in Washington all the time, you know, they create a persona that's not real. And so, So people, everyday voters, they're like, there's another fake politician

because it's obviously fake instead of just like be yourself. If you care about something, talk about the things that you care about. I find when I meet people who've only seen me on TV or whatever, they're like, oh my God, you're so normal. And it's like, shock, I'm like, that's horrible. Like, thank you.

But it's unfortunate that it's like the exception rather than the norm. And, you know, my strength comes from my groundedness in my purpose in life and not having any doubt about who I am and why I'm doing what I'm doing and not feeling the need to try to create something that's not there. Does that answer your question? The answer is part of it. Okay.

I guess I also wanted to hear a little bit more about. the relationship between men and women at societal level. The way we talk about that, the way we talk about the roles of men and women. And, you know, I know you've talked openly about how wokeness is anti-white, but I also think I'm not some men's rights, blah, blah, blah. I'm worried about the fact that men and women are being encouraged to be disconnected from each other. The men and women are encouraged to see each other as enemies instead of people working together. That's real. That's what I, I think you're uniquely placed to talk about that.

That's where I was king. Yeah, I mean, I think that what we're seeing in our country here is we are being divided on many fronts. And this is one of them, you know, now is a time where I see an opportunity for men and women to come together around the basic objective truth of our biological differences. And not that one is strong and one is weak is we are unique. and different biologically, and that is a fact. And if we can't stand together around that, then, you know, I don't really know what to say. You know, I can just, things evolve and things change and the culture changes and the way people perceive each other changes. For my personal experience, you know, I was fourth of five kids. I am the fourth of five kids. I have three

older brothers and younger sister. And I'm grateful to my parents for so many things, but they never, there was never any, like, uh, predisposition or, or limits of like, oh, your brothers can do this, but you girls can't do that. My younger sister and I. And, and so, for example, when I went and, um, uh, shipped off to basic training, for example, for the army, uh, I went in and I'm just like, every challenge that we got, whether it was a physical challenge or shooting, challenge or whatever it was, like, my thing is about, if I'm going to do it, I'm going to do my best, and I will try to be excellent at everything I do. And it was not like I want to be the best female soldier here. Like, no, of course, I want to be the best. Not because I want the spotlight

for any reason, but why, if you're going to do something, don't be half fast about it. And, and so, I'm just grateful that I was not brought up with some kind of artificial sense of, like, well, you're a woman so you have to do this and only men can can do that but also uh showing my capabilities through my actions and not standing on a soapbox saying like i'm a woman you have to listen to me because i'm a woman like no listen to me because i got something important to tell you uh you know i i hope that we as a society can move more in the direction just like martin luther king talked about seeing beyond our race see beyond our gender and our sex and value each other as humans and make that judgment based on character

and how we live our lives and the choices that we make. Tulsi, it seems to me that a lot of this stuff, obviously it comes from the universities, but it's endorsed by the elites. And you talk about the elites of the Democratic Party, and I know there's going to be lots of people who are watching and listening to this and going, I hear that term all the time.

What does that mean? And why can't they be challenged? Yeah, yeah, it's a good question. And I'm, in my book, I'm very, I was very intentional in using the term Democrat elite versus the Democrats, because, first of all, I think casting judgment on any group of people is always a dangerous thing, because it's not...

Unless they're white men. I will even stand up for the white man. Because they're not all the same, you know what I mean? You know, I, on that front, you know, I, I grew up in Hawaii where it's one of, it may be the only state or if not one of the few, where, quote, unquote, Caucasian or white people are actually the minority. So it's, you know, the whole race thing is just, again, it's another wedge that's used to divide us. But casting that judgment, there are a lot of Democrats like me who are frustrated with the Democratic Party

and who have either already left or who are just feeling like, man, I don't know if there's any hope in this party, given what we're seeing today. The Democrat elite are who I hold responsible for their policies because they are either the ones creating the policies, executing the policies, or helping to propagate these narratives that are dividing our country

and undermining the foundational fabric that makes us who we are. And yes, they are elected politicians. They are unelected bureaucrats who hold administrative positions in our government. They are many of the talking heads that you might see on some news channels or cable or broadcast television. They are people within, you know, the Googles and the metas who are carrying out and acting as a tool for the policies and the narratives that the Democrat elite are pushing in our country. They are the George Soros of the world, those who are funding and pushing. these kinds of changes that are so-called progressive changes,

but that are actually counterproductive to the well-being and interests of the American people. And so there will be people as well going, how in charge is Joe Biden? How in charge is Carmala Harris? Are these people who have their own ideas and are implementing them in the world, or is it the fact that they are simply doing the bidding

of the elite of the Democratic Party? Without living in their minds, knowing what I know is these are people who are operating out of fear of losing power. And so... Why? Why are they afraid of losing power? Francis and I, in the evenings, we sit around, we take the piss out of each other, our team, whatever. But every now and again, we actually get serious. And if you're 80 years old, how much more fucking power do you need?

How much more money do you, like, why aren't you just going? You know what, my time has done now. I'm going to mentor people. I'm going to, why do you want this much power, 80? It feels like I'm interrogating you. I don't get it. Do you understand it? Do you understand why these people want?

Why don't you spend your tongue with your grandkids? Look, I completely agree with you. Nancy Pelosi's in the same boat. Right. We heard over and over when I was in Congress like, oh, she's only staying here because none of you have what it takes to step up to the plate. She would much rather be in San Francisco

with her grandkids and relaxing and spending time with her family. We heard this from her and her kids, her daughters, who were very much involved with politics. So now she's no longer speaker and she's running for re-election again and she's in exactly the same

boat. Joe Biden is somebody who's always wanted to be president for his entire time. He was in Congress and the Senate for decades. And obviously, He ran for president before. Now he's there. You really think he's going to give that up willingly. Well, he's done it now.

You tick the box. Look, I agree with you. I agree with you. But, Kamala Harris. I think really that, because I'll be honestly to tell you, this is a strong word to use. But to me, that way of thinking sounds psychopathic. Yes.

In a way, in a way, I, yes, I see that. I've heard the same about Kamala Harris. I know people went to college with her, and they said even back then, she was cold and calculating and very clear about her ambition and where she wanted to end up. And she's, she's pretty close to being in that place. So when you have people who only care about power and who have created, and I've seen this with members of Congress as well, which is why people end up compromising their principles and,

and their conscience to be able to stay in power is they see their identity as being attached and their relevance and their ability to matter as a human being on this world as being attached to this title that they hold. And so it is exactly. That's scary. It is scary and dangerous because this is the sort of thing that we see in dictators in different parts of the world. The fear of losing that, that title, that level of importance,

that quote unquote respect that they come. command, not because of who they are, but because of that title and that position is what is driving the destruction of our fundamental freedoms in America right now. Do you know what it sounds like, Tulsi? It sounds like an addiction. It sounds like people who are addicted to power. In the same way that you can get addicted to anything else, you need that. You need that above all else. And to hell with the consequences of the impact on the people around you because you need that thing. That is exactly where we are right now

in the United States of America. To hell with the consequences, to hell with, you know, things like our Democratic Republic and what that is supposed to be, what our founders envisioned for America, to hell with people's lives, careers, reputations, their ability to live in a safe community

and raise their kids with a good education. They don't care about, the people, they don't care about the American people, they care about power and are willing to do as we are, I mean, it is playing out in real time, they are willing to do whatever it takes in a more brazen way than I've ever seen in my life in this country so that they can stay in power. Because I see the trials of Donald Trump and if this happened 10, 15 years ago, I'd be like, well, there's obviously, he's done something really bad.

I trust the judicial process. I look at it now. I don't think I do. And I'm not somebody who's online going, oh, they're in control, they're in charge. I don't believe that. But they're making me believe that. Yes.

Yes. Again, it's happening in broad daylight and the fact that they aren't even trying to hide it. You know, with the fact that you have the DA in New York, Alvin Bragg, who and and Leticia James, both who campaigned on the premise that, if you elect me, we will go after Donald Trump. That was their campaign promise. It wasn't, we will go after him for this egregious crime. They looked for and found ways to be able to

charge him with these crimes so that they could keep him locked up in court and keep him off of the campaign trail and away from voters. And this is what we're seeing throughout the justice, so-called justice system that unfortunately has been weaponized and politicized by this administration. Tosier, are you a Republican now? I'm an independent. It's interesting because I come back to the point I made earlier, is like how do you move forward, right?

Because America has this very binary thing. We have this similar in the UK. And my fear is, I mean, both our fear we talk about often is whatever happens in the next election is going to be bad. Do you see what I mean? Because I agree with you, particularly on the geopolitics side of things. Donald Trump would have been a better president to manage all the fires that are happening around the world. But if he's elected, the backlash seems to me to, he's going to make 2016 pale

and insignificance. What do you mean by that? I mean that the woke backlash against it. They're going to have a meltdown in the media and elsewhere that's going to trump, wrong word, that's going to be bigger than anything we've seen. That's my fear. I don't doubt that at all. But I, I don't, I think that there are more people now who are seeing those kinds of meltdowns for what they are and who have maybe had their eyes opened about what this woke administration, the Biden administration, has actually done to people in their lives and their families and their communities, people who don't pay attention to politics at all. I see, you know, moms rising up in different states in the country.

starting their own, like starting with a small group of moms who've never done anything in politics, but recognizing like, I got to do something about this for my kids. And this is happening in a lot of different ways, which is the hallmark of what the American democracy is traditionally about. And that's really where the answer is.

So, no, I see things differently from you in the sense that to say that whatever the outcome of this election is going to be bad is to me not accurate. I think some are worse than others. Will it be perfect? Of course not. We have, we have a lot of work to do in our country. I've stated the devastating outcome if President Biden or the Democratic leader are allowed to remain in charge. If President Trump is elected, certainly there will be a course correct on many fronts. Certainly there will be the Trump derangement syndrome will go to another level. But I think that there are more Americans who maybe would

never have considered voting for Trump in the past who now are looking at like, I'm a small business owner. And President Biden wants to raise the capital gains tax by 44% not only on what you've sold, but on your assets that you hold. Like, most small business owners will be completely driven out of business by that. And so people are looking at the nuts. and bolts, again, of the policies versus what was tradition, I think, in 2016 and 2020, was a lot of the non-substantive issues style or comments or, you know, things that were said or done or whatever. And I think the border is a good example of that. A lot of people who criticized Donald Trump for his harshness in how he talked about the border in 2016 and even going into

2020 are looking at what Biden Harris have done in essentially, and in a practical way, having a truly open border policy and how it's impacting not only our southwestern border states, but it's impacting major cities, democratic strongholds, in ways that are impossible to deny at this point. But this is a thing that I just can't believe. The fact that you have these people, you know, and they all went to the best universities,

they're all far more intelligent than me, blah, blah, blah. And they got, well, we're going to have an own. Far more intelligent, I think that's a debate. point. Just because you've gone to a fancy university doesn't mean you have intelligence. And that is proving to be rapidly true. And I look at something like the border and I go, there is nobody here who thinks this is a good idea. There is something else going on here because it's basic common sense that you can't have a border open because if you have an open border, you don't have a country. That is plainly obvious to everybody, number one. Number two,

You look at the fentanyl crisis in this country. It's destroying your young people. It's killing hundreds of thousands of people. So why is there an open border? And who thinks this is a good idea? And there must be something else going on. Or am I being a conspiracist? You're not, but there are people who think it's a good idea.

If you listen to the rhetoric coming from the AOCs of Congress, she's not alone. She's not alone in her view. that essentially the border should be open, that no one should get deported. She does not share the view that without borders, we have no country. There are people who really truly believe

that we should be an open border country that welcomes anyone and everyone who's escaping suffering or seeking a better life in America. You know, there are people who, I would say, a very large chunk of Democrats in Congress who are unwilling to fix our broken immigration system because they really believe in open borders. They can't answer back to the very real security challenges, economic challenges, social challenges

that we're dealing with because of those open border policies. But the motivation, I think, is, I think you can put them in two broad categories. One, there is certainly a political motive. You're not a conspiracy theorist to believe that, you know, the Democratic Party has traditionally been a party of immigrants. And so they would assume that the more immigrants that they let into the country illegally at some point will be allowed to vote. And they are pushing in some states and cities to allow them to vote, even though they are here in this country illegally. And then there's also, even for those Democrats who recognize the problem with, open borders, they've painted themselves into a corner because of their backlash against Donald

Trump calling for securing the border in that they have made it so that if you are for a secure border and against illegal immigration, you are racist. And I saw that on the 2020 presidential debate. That was how different candidates were cast. And so, you know, I supported a secure border and, you know, finding the means of security that actually make the most sense at a practical level. I was against providing, like, open and free, you know, health care and housing

and all of these things to people who are entering our country illegally. It is a crime. You're breaking a law by entering our country illegally. What to speak of the fact that, you know, Hawaii is filled with immigrants who entered our country legally, who have a hard time getting their family members

from the Philippines or, you know, from Vietnam to be able to come and visit for, I experience this myself, to come and visit for a significant family event to get a tourist visa for two weeks. People are being rejected even to this day. My friend who's a Special Forces warrant officer, he served our country for over 30 years,

countless deployments into combat zones. He's about to retire. His wife is from Europe. Her sister lives, she's a resident of Italy. Their family wanted to come to the retirement ceremony, and they were rejected. They couldn't get a tourist visa to come here for two weeks.

They work, they have kids in school, they have lives in Italy. They're going to go home. But they couldn't get a tourist visa approved. And yet, if they flew to Tijuana today, they could easily walk across the border and be here in a heartbeat. We have exactly the same thing in the UK.

And I'm first generation immigrant myself. My mother couldn't come and see her grandson who had just been born while we have tens of thousands of people. people streaming into the country illegally. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it? And also as well, it's this idea of the party of immigrants. My mother is Venezuelan.

I'm sure if you ask, for every Venezuelan in this country who is legal, who had to flee because of the horrific policies of Travis and Maduro, they would not want people to come to this country illegally. That's right. That's right. Tosso, there's one other issue we wanted to talk about, and it's probably the only issue that we truly disagree on, although maybe we'll find out that we don't, I don't know, which is Ukraine. I understand, given your experiences, why you would be generally very keen for us

to avoid war, and I am too. The thing that I wanted to ask you is, A, why do you think there's a war in Ukraine? In fact, let's just start with that. Why do you think there's a war in Ukraine happening right now? Well, you look at the triggering event of Putin's invasion into Ukraine, but you also have to look at the history of NATO and incursion and the expansion of NATO that played a very real factor in that taking place. In addition to Kamala Harris and others in the Biden administration in the days and weeks leading up to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, basically saying, well, Ukraine needs to be a member of NATO, even though that was not a very, that was not a realistic thing at that given time.

And there were many NATO members who were very strongly opposed to that idea. And so the war kicked off. That makes sense. And look, by the way, I don't think anyone sensible would deny that NATO expansion is a provocation to Russia. I think that's undeniable to some extent. I suppose the question is, where do you think NATO should have stopped expanding? Because this is a question people never answer. So if you look back to the fall of the Soviet Union, when I believe it was, well, Russia said, like, hey, we would like to join NATO.

I think that was a pivotal moment where I think it was Bill Clinton who said no at that time. First he said yes, and then he came back and he said no. But when we look at what was the reason to oppose Russia's joining NATO at that time? There was clearly a decision that had to be made. Well, you know, at that point, follow the Soviet Union, why should NATO still exist? They needed someone to be the bad guy. And so even though there were overtures at that time or direct requests by Russia to be able to join this North Atlantic Treaty organization, and was rejected.

Every increment of the expansion at that point was a further statement, I suppose, that, well, NATO needs an enemy and Russia is the enemy. Okay. Here's what I would say. I think that the reason Russia wasn't allowed into NATO is much more the United States concerns about dominance of NATO. In other words, being in charge.

If you have another large country with a huge nuclear arsenal that upsets the balance, The reason I ask you the question is this. I'm very familiar with the Maya Shimer argument about NATO expansion, et cetera. Given what I understand Russia's geopolitical ambitious to be, which is to secure its western flank as much as possible, Russia always expands westwards when it can, because we don't need to get into why exactly economics and geography, etc. So if NATO wasn't incorporating Latvia, Stony Lithuania, all these countries that are terrified

of Russian Westwards expansion, and they have been for historical reasons. They've always been invaded over and over and over. The question to me is if NATO hadn't expanded or disbanded, which is what some people are advocating, where would Russian tanks be today or what part of the world would Russia control? And it seems to me incredibly naive to think that they would have just said, oh, okay, we'll just split up the Soviet, we'll just leave it as is. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah, I hear you.

but I think that it is, it's an impossible hypothesis to prove one way or the other. I'm sure that historians on both sides of this point could argue and make credible arguments about what would have or could have happened. My point with what is happening today is that, yes, we have to understand history, but we also have to look at this current war with a very, with a realist view of what are Russian, capabilities today? What is the cultural and historical significance of the areas that Russia has tried to take control over or has, actually? And what is our continued support of Ukraine and what is essentially a proxy war against Russia? What is the actual objective that they're

trying to accomplish here? We've heard from Secretary of Defense Austin and others in the Biden administration saying, well, you know, they want to weak. in Russia or weaken Putin, or they want to punish Putin for what he's done, or they want to essentially enact a regime change and get rid of Putin altogether. But they've not talked about, well, what happens next? What happens when you have a country like Russia that has more nuclear weapons than anywhere in the world, when you remove Putin and who then goes in to replace it? All of that stuff is terrible. Yeah, I agree.

With, you know, what should have happened, and I've said this from the very beginning, is President Biden should have gone in and taken on a leadership role, along with members of NATO and others, to actually be able to negotiate some kind of workable peace treaty to end that war as quickly as possible. And I find it unconscionable that not only did that not happen, but that other countries who have come in and actually brought parties to. together to the table that the president has stood in the way of that progress. So as we look at every tranche of billions of dollars that is sent to Ukraine, this most recent one, you'll hear that, well, Ukraine will lose unless we give them this money, but we have no idea how long they can hold the line. No one has been able to define, well, what is a quote unquote win look like? At what point, is this just another war of attrition that the United States and others are going

to keep funding until what point? What about the Ukraine? I have friends in Ukraine. I've been there many times. And it is the Ukrainian people who are paying the price for this. And generally, sometimes war is necessary. It is always unfortunate. It is always ugly. Unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary. I'm not a pacifist or an isolationist who thinks that, you know, doesn't live in a real world. But I truly believe that all diplomatic efforts need to be exhausted and pursue the path of war, and if we pursue the path of war, there has to be very clearly defined objectives and a definition of what we are trying to accomplish.

What is a win that is based on reality, not based on some fantasy that will never actually be possible? Yeah, I agree with almost everything you're saying, actually, in terms of that. And the money that has just been sent, it's not going to make any difference. It won't.

We both know that. I guess what I'm saying is, is the counterfactual conversation is important because I hear far too many people running around shouting about how we should have disbanded NATO, et cetera, et cetera. And the counterfactual is important because if we had done that, I put it to you that Russian tanks or influence in some very corrupt form in the same way that it was already in Germany and elsewhere would have been far further west than Ukraine. So containing Russia, I would say, is a necessary thing.

you do that, we haven't done it very well or very skillfully, and we've made mistakes. But the idea that we could have just, you know, disband NATO or not expand into Latvia, Stone, Lithuania, Poland, etc., I think it is not considering the alternative sufficiently. Here's the problem that I have is that you can't even have, nobody can have this conversation. We're having a now. In America today. I know, I know. I know.

I'm talking about between the policy makers and between the talking heads on TV, even an academic discussion about this is it is not permitted. As soon as you bring up, I agree, I think there should be this fact, counterfact, back and forth argument that needs to be a part of this before glibly saying, well, we're going to enact this policy and that's just the way it's going to be. We have to have this dialogue. The fact that it is not allowed in Washington or in the media today is a major, a major problem. We make everything a moral issue. And this is the problem. Everything is now about whether you're a good person or not instead of having the discussion. This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new elixir collection, featuring three perfume intense scents,

inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch, solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the Euphoria Elixir Collection by Calvin Klein. We're out of time, so we'll ask you our last question. We'll go to locals for a few of our audience questions. It's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much.

And the final question is, what's the one thing we're not talking about, that we really should be? I can think of a few things. One of the main issues is something that the Congress has just taken action on here in America that has to do with our civil liberties. Too often, our politicians will make the argument to the American people that we have to choose between security, or liberty. We saw so many of our freedoms taken away in the wake of the terrorist attack on 9-11. We were told this is necessary in order to prevent another 9-11-style terrorist attack in our country.

And I go into this in my book about the history of this and how the intelligence community and politicians were trying to seek greater authorities to surveil Americans long before 9-11, the attack on 9-11 ever happened. And they used the fear and the concern that people had, rightly so, after 9-11, in order to pass many of these pieces of legislation that, rightfully so, Congress had rejected in the past because of the unconstitutional nature of them. Here we are. It's been over 20 years after the terrorist attack on 9-11. And yet Congress, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, have just in the past few weeks passed yet another. piece of legislation that not only continued the unconstitutional and warrantless surveillance of Americans, they have strengthened the government's authorities to be able to encroach further on our private lives and continue this warrantless surveillance. My hope is that more people are paying attention to this and are not falling for the tried argument that has worked in the past of, well, we have to take away more of your freedom to keep you safe because this is what's good for you.

It's happening with our civil liberties. It's happening with the push of the central bank digital currency. And it is, it is, these are further examples of a power grab by our government. And we have to keep our eyes wide open to what they're doing and hold leaders accountable for taking these actions that are violating our constitutional rights. All right, guys, head on over to locals for Tulsi answering your questions. Is Taiwan worth defending, says Harry are. That's a loaded question. What does that mean?