Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Coverage that is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support.
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Joining us now is entrepreneur and presidential candidate Vivike Ramaswami.
Vivike, Welcome to the show. It's good to see you.
Yeah, very glad to have you.
Good to see you guys.
All right, so make your pitch. Why you instead of the guy that was their last time, Donald Trump?
So I see the rest of the GOP field. They are running from something. I'm the person in this race who is leading us to something, to our vision of what it actually means to be an American. We're in the middle of a national identity crisis in our country. Faith, patriotism, hard work, family, these things have disappeared, and I think that leaves a moral vacuum in its way, a black hole. And when you have a black hole that runs that deep.
That is when the poison fills the void. And I think we in the GOP and in the conservative movement often obsess over the poison. Wokeism, transgenderism, climatism, covidism, globalism.
You name it, I view it.
These symptoms are just symptoms of a deeper, underlying void of purpose and meaning.
And I think I'm in the candidate.
In this race who's actually offering an affirmative vision as opposed to just saying that we're not doing what the left is doing. No individual, family, nation, God, these are the things that ground us.
I think we should talk.
About them in the open, and I think that's what we're having.
Success early on Vivik.
There's been some discussions in recent days around your book about January sixth, especially given concurrent potential pending indictments against the former president.
Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
In your book, you wrote, quote, the loser of the last election refused to concede the race and claim the election was stolen, raised hundreds of millions of alis from loyal supporters. It's considering running for executive office again. I'm referring to Donald Trump. Do you still believe that Trump actually lost the election in the January sixth was a dark day for democracy.
I was in detail in both of my books and articles, and I've been very consistent about this throughout.
I have seen no evidence.
It's exactly what I said in Nation of Victims, and I haven't seen the evidence since that there was a scale of ballot fraud that would have changed the outcome of the twenty twenty presidential election.
I've also said in.
That same book and ever since that the real way the election was, in a narrow sense stolen was the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story on the eve of the election.
I'm data driven.
The data is compelling, including three sixty degree polling data that said people would have changed their vote had they been exposed to information that was systematically suppressed. So that's my view was big tech interference was the problem. I haven't seen any evidence of systematic ballot fraud being the basis.
For a difference in result.
But most importantly, I think a lot of these factors did lead to and culminate in what happened on January sixth, systematic suppression of information, and I think until we have reconciled ourselves with that reality. I'm afraid we're going to see much worse in the future. That is why I'm in this race to speak the truth and to lead us to something so that we can actually be one nation rather than on our march to a national divorce.
And I think I'm better positioned to lead that nation forward than Donald Trump or anybody else in this Republican field.
So one reason that we're asking some of these questions is because we are expecting indictments with regard to January six for President Trump as soon as today, but potentially this week. You've said in the past that you would pardon former President Trump if you are yourself elected president
of the United States. I mean, is that hard and fast, or is your mind open to change if there was some new evidence that was presented that you aren't aware of, or you just you're locked in you're going to pardon them and it really doesn't matter what comes out.
No, I'm data d on the first two indictments.
I read them completely before making my statement that I would pardon Trump, both for the most recent documents case, which for reasons I've laid out elsewhere, we can go into it, I think is absolutely politically motivated, is absolutely a national disaster if this proceeds to a conviction. I think it was a disaster that it proceeded to an indictment. Yes, I would pardon him for that, and I would also pardon him for the New York case. And yes, I
know state law federal law. I've made an argument on the pages of the Wall Street Journal as to why the president can pardon him for that crime as well. Based on what I know, I would absolutely pardon him for the alleged offenses underlying a potential January sixth indictment. I think that would be a national disaster as well, potentially even more dangerous than the other two because of Section three of the fourteenth Amendment, this one could actually
disqualify him from holding office. And I say this as somebody who's now polling third in the Republican field. It would be easier for me if Donald Trump were not in this race, but that is not the way I want to win this election. I think that we should not become a country where the party in power uses police force to indict and eliminate its political opposition.
So exactly why we do things in this country.
I want to get a clarity on your position, so on the document's case in particular. First of all, I want to ask you, you know, given what we know, and he deserves his day in court, et cetera. But looks pretty clear he held on to a bunch of very classified material when he started getting calls from the government and from law enforcement saying, hey, you know, we know you've got some things, will you cooperate with us?
According to what's been presented so far, it looks like not only did he not cooperate, that he, you know, moved some boxes around and tried to conceal exactly what he had. Don't you think that a private citizen that engaged in those types of activities wouldn't they also be indicted and probably given a lot less grace and a lot fewer second chances than former President Trump was in this instance.
So I tracked the facts against the law. And one critical feature, Crystal, is that this was the former president of the United States, and there is a statute that covers former presidents of the United States and how they
relate to both classified and unclassified documents. That's the Presidential Records Act that came after the Act under which he was indicted, which I think is one of the most Unamerican statutes, the Espionage Act, and I wrote an extensive piece in the Wall Street Journal about why I would repeal that Act. It's been abused for most of our
national history. I think it was abused here. So the Presidential Records Act makes clear what access a president of the United States has to at least unclassified documents on
the theory that he's being prosecuted against. Actually, the Espionage Act does not distinguish between classified or unclassified documents, which means that there's a strong legal argument that the Presidential Records Act supersedes the Espionage Act as it relates to presidents who touch that, who deal with classified or unclassified documents.
Tried the law very carefully. It's legal.
So you actually don't think that he deserved indictment here, and that it doesn't so you think a president in theory could be indicted, or a former president could be indicted. You just disagree with this particular legal case. Is that the gist of your position here.
That's absolutely correct on strong legal footing. This was a bad judgment, and I want to be very clear, I would have made in many of these instances, probably in every one of these instances, different judgments than Donald Trump made. And I will remind you I'm running against him for this nation in a Republican primary. But we cannot conflate a bad judgment with a crime. We have to actually
match it up with the law. That's the problem with the Alvin Bragg indictment, that's the problem with the first Jack Smith indictment. These facts do not meet the law and the legal test relevant to the actual facts at issue. And the fact that that indictment, in forty nine pages, did not once mention the Presidential Records Act is one of many signs of politicization. They included statements that Trump had made on the campaign trail against Hillary Clinton in an indictment.
I had no place in an indictment.
But if you were going to include those statements, they should have also, at least for completeness, included Trump's statement after he won the election saying that he would not go after Hillary Clinton for those same alleged defenses. So this reeks to me of politicization, and I think it sets an awful precedent for prosecutions in this country.
Let me just say and then I'll let Sager move on to the next area that we want to get from you. But I mean, they literally have him on tape, being like this document is classified. When I was president, I could have declassified it, but I didn't do that.
Let me show it to you. It seems to me, and based on a lot of legal analysis that I've read, and even his own lawyers and teams saying that they think that his only out now is not through the legal system but by winning reelection as president of the United States, that this is a fairly compelling case. It's certainly one that would be brought against an ordinary citizen. So we'll just agree to disagree on our legal analysis here because I want to move forward.
To one stalk point, because the just crystal the critical point is there is a special law that deals with presidents of the United States, so the analogy of what an ordinary citizen would be.
But he's not president more.
The Presidential Records Act explicitly is written to cover present You know that.
If you had documents laying around.
Behavior.
But I've written extensively, and I believe the law should be applied. Actually, rather than making up the law.
Records, he'll have his chance to make a case in court.
Right, Yeah, I do actually want to ask you also about another one of your opponents. You don't often get asked about as much, Governor Ron DeSantis. We actually have a more recent poll, let's go and put this up there on the screen, which actually shows you tied with him in this race. However, interestingly enough, an analysis of some of the voters that he are losing really seems to be around the central role that he's made wokeness
in his campaign. Since you have also not only written a book about wokeness, you talk about it quite a bit, why do you think his message here isn't resonating and are you learning anything from his continuing fall in the polls.
So Zacher, I want to be clear, my message in this campaign is fundamentally different than Ron DeSantis's message. And yes, when I wrote my book Woke in long before the word woke was in the Republican parlance, I was analyzing a problem that at that point was poorly understood by many Americans in this country. In this campaign, I'm moving
us forward. This is about national identity. I think wokeness is just a symptom of our deeper void for purpose and meaning in our country, and I think people are hungry for the real answer here, not playing whack a mole with wokeism to climatism, symptomatic therapy. I think people are hungry for the real thing. I want to be very clear. I think rodn DeSantis, in many ways certainly
has been a very good governor in Florida. Of course, you could pick something in anybody's record, so nobody's perfect, but I think by and large he's been a good governor. I think there's a lot of parallels between him and Scott Walker, who was also an excellent governor. I think there's a role for everyone in our movement and in our country.
He's a great executor.
But when it comes to leading this nation, I think, as Reagan provided in nineteen eighty leading us out of our last national identity crisis, I think what this moment calls for is a leader who has a vision for where we are going, a vision for what it actually means.
To be an American.
And I think there's a difference between being able to articulate and inspire people around an affirmative vision and being able to litigate small ball grievances as a way of, you know, executing within a state.
One of the core things that you have led with is I'm the guy who will actually get it done.
You know, I will actually execute the America First movement.
But if you look at Governor Desandas, this is a man who turned to a blue state, or at least purpolest state, actually read he won a twenty point electoral victory. He has legislated, you know, actually gotten things done through actual political process. So why should we take somebody who is an entrepreneur with no actual political experience over an elected governor of millions of people. Somebody's proven himself in
a state legislature. When you're looking at your two records on the who can get it done question?
Well, look, I've gotten a lot of things done in my life as well. I've built multi billion dollar companies from scratch, employed thousands of people in this country, and so everyone in this race, from Dissantus to myself has prior accomplishments to be able to point to.
I think the question is.
The unique challenge of being the president of the United States and leading us forward. One of the things that's different from me and every other single candidate in this race is I'm the only one who is not bound by the constraints applied by the Megrodno class. This is the super PAC primary, absolutely, and I think we have a lot of super Pac puppets in this election. Last time around it was Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. This
time we have a lot more n a puppet. Well, you can look at whose campaigns are principally funded by super PACs and follow the facts for yourself. But what I will say is that I am unconstrained by that. I've put in fifteen plus million dollars already of my heart earned money, precisely because I did not want to take a tin can ring a hat in hand and ask a bunch of donors for permission to run, because
that comes with constraints. And so when we're talking about the issues we really need to attack shutting down the administrative state, from the FBI to the ATF, to the IRS, to the Department of Education to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where I've laid out unprecedented clarity in exactly how we will do it on strong legal authority, declaring independence from China very touchy issue in the Republican donor class.
Other issues that I'm tackling.
Other candidates are constrained if they're tied to mega donors that have interests that stop them my position on Ukraine.
There.
Let me ask you a follow up on the super Pac thing, because I think that's interesting that you have that critique of money in politics. I mean, would you push for a constitutional amendment to change that? What would you do to try to diminish the influence of that money in politics? And also equally, isn't it just as problematic that you've been a very wealthy, successful guy that you're able to, you know, with your own cash, really impact the course of this race.
I think that is significantly less problematic, Crystal, because people can at least judge that on.
Its own terms transparently.
I think it is far more problematic when you're a representative and a puppet for somebody else's interests, and I think that there's a big difference there. Right put money for the race. So here's what I would do. One thing I would say is, if I'm the nominee, as I expect to be in the general election, I'll throw out a pass to Joe Biden or whoever my opponent is to catch remember, the left was the one that preached Citizens United in twenty ten, wanted money out of politics.
I'll say this, we'll make a handshake deal that we both shun super pac money. We're not going to show up at events where a super PAC representative as a present.
You're not looking for any sort of legislative change that wall.
I'm going in order of what's actually achieving, because Citizens United is a complicated holding, and this is complex terrain, and I've spent years studying this. I share your I share much of the left's ajita with the influence of money in politics.
Read Woking carefully. That's what the book is about.
Actually, So that's the first thing I would do, and I would make that deal with anybody else.
In this Republican primary.
The other thing I would say is there's a difference between super PACs and packs. Right, So there are these five H one C four entities that have I mean, such a complicated, unnecessarily byzantine arrangement, but there are certain rules that say, hey, at least there are certain kinds of money and these other kinds of tortured legal creations where it can't advocate for candidates specifically, but can advocate
for issues. I think that's actually a reasonable middle ground to say that people still have their First Amendment protections using their own money to advocate for issues or for issues of public importance without actually throwing that money behind a candidate alone. And so this is complicated, It butts up against complex First Amendment jurisprudence.
But I think the easiest way to lead is through action.
And so I'll make a deal with anybody I'm running against, and if they abide by it, I'll commit to do the same. Shun the super pack game and revive actually a race that is about one person, one vote, one person, one voice.
That was the promise of the American experiment.
We fought a revolution to say that we the people settle our differences through free speech and open debate in the public square, where every person's voice and vote counts equally. The Left used to be on board with that. I hope they still are. I think we live in a moment where Republicans can and should embrace this message too. I'm leading the way on that, and I think that's going to be good for our country if we get there.
You talk there about voting, and actually one of the more controversial things that you've put forward is a proposition that to be able to vote under the age of twenty five, you would either have to serve in the military or to pass a test. Why you know a decent portion of that people are watching the show you do, a lot of online shows, are actually below the age of twenty five. What is the case to them to deprive them of their right to vote under the US Constitution.
Let me, first of all, this would require a constitutional amendment, So you're absolutely right that the current constitutional state of affairs, this is not something that I'm talking about is a law. Let me actually share with you, saga, this has been distorted many times over what the heart of my proposal actually is, and then build into that nothing you said was inaccurate.
But let me get to the heart of the motive.
What I've said is every high school student who graduate in this country should have to pass the same Civics test that each of our parents, I'm going to presume had to pass in order to become citizens of this country. Right, every immigrant has to pass in order to become a citizen of this country. I think I'll stand by and
wait for a good argument. I still haven't heard one for why high school students in this country when they turn eighteen should not have to know the same things about the country that a naturalized citizen we demand them to know as well. And so now let's talk about actually a legal structure. We already have age eighteen to twenty five young men in this country have to already register.
I did it.
I'm sure, selective service registration. On pain of criminal penalties. You have to register for the draft. I've said that I would actually decriminalize that. I don't think that's the way we should do things in this country. But in return for decriminalizing the selective service mandate for men in the age of eighteen to twenty five, I've said we need to instead tie civic privileges to civic duties, as our founding fathers envisioned. We live in a constitutional republic.
That means something. It means our civic privileges come with civic duties attached to them.
That's what our.
Founding fathers envisioned, and that's part of what I think we need to revive. And so I've said that, yes, I believe that at least when you're age eighteen to twenty five, that same window where we have selective service mandates today, you at least have to pass that same civics test that immigrant has to pass or else tests aren't for everybody at least serve the country in some minimal way military or first respond to role.
And I'll tell you what I expect to happen. Voting rates are very.
Low in kids, in young people among the ages of eighteen to twenty five. I think they will skyrocket once we actually make the act of voting means something, and I think that's actually going to be an important part of our civic revival in our nation.
Let me flip it around.
Then, there's been a lot of discussion around Joe Biden's cognitive ability. Should there be then a maximum age to vote? And when people do lose their cognitive ability, Like if we're going to have some sort of tests in place on the lower end, should we not have them in place on the higher end as well.
So my view is this is not actually a vision for just applying it to young people. This is a vision of what I think should be a civic requirement for really every citizen. But we have to start somewhere, and so I don't believe in somebody who's sixty years old taking away something they've already exercised for all their life.
But at some point, if we agree that this is a good premise, that we want an educated citizen ry that lives out at civic duties, feels that sense of civic duty as they go to the ballot box and live their life as citizens, then we're starting with a clean slate that ages into it with people who age into being citizens.
For me, that's the way I look at it.
I'm just going to be real with you, of Avik. It seems to me like a way to get a group of voters that don't tend to vote very Republican out of the electorate. That's what it feels like to me, of like a fancy You've articulated very well, you know,
it's very like civic based ETCeteras. Are to use a lot of good language around it, but it seems very convenient that this group of voters is probably not going to vote for you or Donald Trump in very large numbers and are more likely to show up for Joe Biden.
Christal.
Let me see if I can convince you of my motivations.
I understand and.
That's reasonable, that's but just for fun, just for fun, let's give it, let's let's I enjoy these conversations.
So here's what I would say.
First of all, if that were the case, I wouldn't say it now because I don't have an ability to change that in the election that I'm actually running in. Right to the contrary, I actually one of the things that I'm seeing in this campaign is more than any other candidate in either side, in either political party. We're going to college campuses, We're confronting people with diverse views
across this country, including young people. Forty percent of the donors to my campaign we have seventy thousand plus donors already, forty percent of them are first time ever donors to the GOP, and many of them are actually young. And the reaction that I get when I go to college campuses with this idea crystal is at first, yes, it does make people perk.
Up a little bit.
But when we talk through the justification and talk through, talk through the actual motive, I'm actually seeing something beautiful we haven't seen in this country in a long time, which is this.
Notion of persuasion.
Actually, we treat people as though they are animals that were being counters and we say, well, you guys are in the Democrat camp, you guys in the Republican camp. You're in the Black voting block, you're in the Asian voting block. Divide people up, vote bank politics. So there were a bunch of animals that jump up to a bone like a dog jump into a bone for its
treat No. I believe that we are citizens, and what distinguishes is as human beings from animals is that we can engage in open persuasion and discourse.
And so let me ask you a little bit of people.
My motivations, but I could prove it to you. I believe that this is going to be right for the country.
I'm like you, I'm looking at the data, looking at which party that this would benefit. And you know that's but I'm just one person. People can make their own decision. But speaking of the discourse, you know one thing that I wanted to ask you. I've listened to a lot of your interviews. You know, I think you've gotten a
lot of attraction online. You're coming up in the polls, Like I think people really need to pay attention to what you're saying and when you talk about people who are concerned with climate, you call them climatists, you call them climate cultists. You know, let's just put some of the these news stories up on the screen. Here. You've got record high temperatures that are causing increasing death in Arizona.
You've got workers who are dying from heat exhaustion. You've got people who are being choked by wildfire smoke from Canada. You've got an entire state of Florida that's basically unensurable at this point. And American people are living this reality increasingly at this point, and an overwhelming majority of them, some you know, two thirds, say yeah, this is a
concern for me. So do you have the sort of contempt in your heart for them that comes out in that language when you would describe them as climate cultists.
I have no contempt in my heart, Crystal. I have deep sympathy for people who are hungry for purpose and meaning and have relocated their desire for faith to the faith in climate instead.
But why should But what's wrong?
What's we can talk? People are experiencing this in their own lives right now.
So, Crystal, in any other context, if the people that trust the science crowd were persuaded by lived experience of individ jewels of something that's actually a macro phenomenon. You would laugh them off the stages. A bunch of roobs weren't data driven. So let's talk data.
Well, let's let's talk about it. I've got I've got some that I can put up on the screen. Good for the next and then I hear from you, Good, put the next pieces up on the screen. We've got some record lows in terms of Antarctic sea ice extent. We've got ocean temperatures that are smashing seasonal records. We had just the hottest June on.
It might be helpful for me to lay out my views. You're saying things I agree with, saying things I agree with.
Tell me what's tell me what I'm getting wrong here, and why this is not something that people should be concerned about, and why they're in a cult if they are concerned about it.
Sure, So let me lay out some hard facts, both about my views and facts on the ground. Our global surface temperature is going up, yes. Is that likely due to man made causes?
Yes?
Is that an existential threat to humanity? There is no evidence to support that To the contrary eight times, as many people die of cold temperatures rather than warm ones. The Earth today is more covered by green surface area than it was even a century ago. Because carbon dioxide is plant food, plants actually grow in slightly warmer climates. The climate disaster related death rate is down by ninety eight percent over the last century, directly attributable to more
abundant and plentiful access and use of fossil fuels. So I want to be really clear about my view. This is not a does climate change exist or not? It's the wrong framing of the question. The question is what impacts human prosperity, human flourishing in a world in which there are net positive and net negative effects of climate but also net positive and net negative effects of the use of fossil fuels. I also find it to be a mystery, and it's mystery. Maybe you can help me solve, Crystal.
Why is it that many of the people who are the staunch opponents to carbon emissions are also among the staunchest opponents to hydroelectric energy or to nuclear energy. I think that that suggests there's something else going on. There's lots of different standards for China. Let me see there's something else going on here. That's my point about there's a religious conviction that goes beyond the commitment to the facts.
Let me just say that even Greta Tunberg, who comes in for a lot of criticism as a quote unquote climate cultist, is now in favor of nuclear energy. I agree with you on nuclear that should be more of a push.
By the way, if you want to stick to Greta, I actually respect credit for one thing. She's honest. She says it's not just about the climate. It's about social justice. It's about climate justice, it's about equity. So these are things that she is actually honestly.
You're living. If you're living in a poor neighborhood in this country, you're more likely to be affected by the toxic plants and toxic toxic chemical.
Dis You're more likely to be affected by restraints on fossil fuels, is actually what you're likely to be affected by. I wonder people are dying because of lack of access to fossil fuels.
I wonder if you've followed though what's happening. And because you know you're you're capitalists, your a successful business guy, so you certainly understand the way that markets work. You look at Florida, you look at Louisiana, you look at Texas, Colorado, California. These are all places that insurance coming companies. Home insurance companies are pulling out of because the risk of catastrophic weather, extreme weather is so great now that it doesn't make
sense for them to ensure in these marketplaces. Florida, you know, and you talk about the human impact, Florida is becoming virtually uninsurable because of the lack of home insurance companies that are willing to operate in this state. So I don't know how you can look at the situation right now and say that you know there aren't already extreme costs being imposed on people, not to mention workers who are falling out for meat exhaustion, et cetera.
So, Chris ll I don't take my facts on the climate change debate from what the home insurance market is actually doing. In many ways, that's distorted by the same climate cult manifests through the ESG movement.
Because the shareholders of these.
Companies Black Rock, States, stred In, Vanguard are effectively requiring them to behave that way.
Why are they doing it.
It's because Kalper's State of New York and large pension funds have said they won't invest with the large asset managers unless there's signatories of the Climate Action one hundred plus network.
But you know, written books about this. We can go into the depth as you want.
I know, yeah, but you do know. I mean, I'm an ESG thing. I have my own critique of ESG that is greenwashing. But none of these companies carriages the environment aliment or whatever there are. There are studies that show that the funds and the companies that claim ESG and they're all about it, et cetera, they're actually dirtier than the other companies. So in a sense you've won
on that front. But Soccer has a question for I don't want to monopolize all the time, and I know that you have a limited amount of time for us as well.
Actually, my last question for you, Vivek is on Mexico. You've talked and been shared a lot of the critique that we've had here on Ukraine about the military industrial complex about pursuing things that are not of our strategic interest. But you've talked on your website about using the military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels. I know previously you had at least rhetorically opened yourself.
Up to an invasion.
So I mean, what are you going to send America's sons and daughters into Mexican territory? What military resources are going to use? Are we going to declare war on Mexico? How is this all going to work? No, We're not going to declare war on Mexico.
My top objective is to get Mexico to take care of its own problems. Sagar, there is a fundamental difference between what's happening with the drug cartels in Ukraine. What's happening in Ukraine does not affect the lives of Americans here on American soil. What's happening with the Mexican drug cartels in Mexico does. So that's just a fundamental difference. But even against that backdrop, absolutely, I don't want to declaring war on Mexico would be a bone headed idea.
So here's what I would do.
On your website, though, on your website you do say use our military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels.
So what does that happen in the Mexican drug cartels are as much of a threat to the sovereignty of Mexico as they are to the United States. They're more of a threat to the sovereignty of Mexico. So here's what I would do. I've said that I would Here's what I would commit to doing. Use our military to secure our own southern border.
The wall has been insufficient.
Cartel financed tunnels built now underneath that wall.
Trucks can drive through them.
And then I would work with Mexico diplomatically to say that listen up. For a tiny fraction of the amount we've already spent in Ukraine as of this date, we can help you solve your own problem and regain your sovereignty. There's a presidential election in Mexico. I think it's an important one in twenty twenty four as well. Thankfully AMLO is going to be out Hopefully new leadership embraces not the hugs not bullets strategy that he has.
I think that's been a mistake.
I want to actually help Mexico solve its own problem because that will help us, but as a backstop, if they don't solve the problem, then we're going to have to solve our own problem, and that's the way I expect this to in Mexico will solve its own problem.
Web question, what does that mean? Are we talking about drone strikes on cartels and Mexica. Are we talking about cruise missile A We're talking about boots on the ground. If Mexico says.
We're not working, it means we have military on our own border. And there are a series of steps we can take. Turn off foreign aid of any kind to Mexico or Central America until our border crisis is solved. There's a series of steps to take, and I'm convinced that we will never get to the place of actually
having to use war of any kind in Mexico. But at the same time, we have to demonstrate our strength to make sure that Mexico is taking care of its problem in a way that Amelo is absolutely not doing based on the pasta the Bible.
I just want to be I just want to get a really clear answer. Is there any scenario under which you would use the US military against Mexico's wishes to go into their country and drop bombs, drone strike or whatever. Cartels.
I will not rule you take that. We would have rull out.
That we have to use that we may treat Mexican drug cartels in the way we treated ISIS as terrorists in another country that are posing real risk to Americans. And the risk to America is even greater from the Mexican drug cartels than it was from ISIS.
That's what I'll say.
All right, Well, Vic, we got to get you in the studio for a little bit longer next time.
I know you got to go.
Yeah, thank you. I'm really grateful for the exchange.
We also appreciate I have a lot of fun with you guys, So always, thank you.
See you next time. We really appreciate it, and we will see you guys later.
Thanks.
Very excited to be joined now in the studio by tech executive and North Dakota governor and up presidential contender Doug Bergham. Great to see you, sir.
Great to be with you, Crystal.
All right, yeah, let us know why are you running for president? Why do you think you are better than the guy who's the front runner right now, Donald Trump.
Well, first of all, we're running against Joe Biden.
And I you got to get there first.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely do. Everybody's got to get there we're all we're all running the same race, but I'd say, you know, we're we know that we have an opportunity to improve every American life and we can unleash the best of America. And we can do that by focusing on one hundred and eighty to return on the economy, on energy, and national security.
So, Governor, you qualify for the debate stage this morning. You're one of the This is the first interview that you've given us. We're very excited about it. You did get there in an interesting way. You're offering people twenty dollars I think for every one dollar that they were donating campaign. Considering your personal wealth, are you trying to buy or bay on the debate stage. Just explain that to people about how exactly that works.
Well, no, that's actually actually I'm an entrepreneur and I was actually trying to save money. Because if you go to an online firm today and say, hey, can you help us build an online program? Nobody knows us. They'll say, sure, we'll put it together an online program, and the cost is about one hundred dollars per acquisition for customers. So I'm like, I said, that's nuts. You know how would
you do that more inexpensively? And if you were, if the two of you were launching an online retail business and nobody knew you, you would start off by saying, hey, let's offer a really good product. We'll offer it as a loss leader to get people to come to our site and if they like what they see, then maybe they'll buy other stuff. And of course, you know, we offer the card to help give people relief from Biden's inflation.
Most people that are coming, some don't want the card, some like what they see and they give a lot more. And again because of the buzz that it created, that got us a bunch of earned media. So we've got free national attention and we blew through that and we passed the forty thousand, will pass fifty thousand shortly, and I think it gives a chance for people. So if anybody still, we still got some cards to give away.
If enbody wants to learn more about our campaign, Doug burgham dot com, come check it out.
I understand it, as you know, as a businessman, I understand the logic behind it, but it does feel a little gross to basically bribe people to give you a dollar so that you can get on the stage.
Well, I don't think it's riving. You think of these goofy rules, these clubhouse rules. If you've held national office, if you've been a pundit on a national cable channel, if you've been in DC for decades, all of those things, and you've got national name recognition, it's pretty easy if you're if you're from a.
State that's gout of them having such an easy time, you know.
Or if you're from if you're from a state that's got twenty million people. But I mean these rules are really stacked against people from that. You know, we're we have fresh ideas, you know, come from from unexpected places like small towns in small you know, small states, and good ideas can happen anywhere in America. We know this. I mean we you know, we built a business on taking kids from small towns, and we built a world
class business doing that. So I mean, I feel like this is a and to get there in seven weeks. There's something else going on. Because we had something where we had a group called the Sadbusters. They got together once a week and these were friends from high school, friends from the college, friends from the first startups. I was involved in and they all said, Hey, we want to see Doug on the debate stage. Let's get let's talk to everybody on our holiday card list, let's talk
to all of our co workers. And so those guys had the whole momentum going before this whole thing, and so there's a lot of ground support coming.
I'm for competition, I'm for a debate, and I think it's great. Do you think the President Trump should show about the debate now that you're going to be on the stage there.
Well, you guys are pundits, and I think there's a whole industry about what the president former president should do. And every candidate's got.
To run around.
We want them there everybody.
Yeah, every candidate's got to do their own thing. But I mean, we're excited to be on the debate stage and we're looking forward to talking to Americans about things that affect them, like the economy, like energy and national security.
So implicitly, by running, it's not just about Trump, it's about all the other candidates in this race.
You jumped in when some of these people were declared.
What distinguishes you from the other governors who also taut executive experience? You reference Governor Ron DeSantis, former governor Nikki Haley.
Why are you the governor to pick over them?
Well, I think the key differentiator here. First of all, governors make great presidents, we know that. But the key differentiator is my long business experience and been successful but at all levels. I mean starting out as a kid, grown up in a small town in North Dakota, three hundred people. And then my dad passed away when I was a freshman in high school, which was tough. He was a World War two Navy vet. Got to see my mom go back to work widow three kids, you know,
make an ends meet. And then every job I had growing up, working on the farm, working on the ranch, working at the grain elevator, and then actually working as a chimney sweep to help pay my way through college. I mean, these are all jobs that you take a shower at the end of the day, not at the beginning of the day. So I understand what working America is going through when they're facing inflation in this environment. And then I had an opportunity. I saw I saw
an Apple Tude computer with VisiCalc the first spreadsheet. I'm like, wow, that's going to change the world. Literally, I took this small amount of farm ground I got from my dad mortgage that, which is something you never do when your grandparents have homesteaded and paid for the arm. You don't take debt out on land. But that became the seed capital for great planes. And we took that from ten
people to two thousand. We had people working twelve hundred and Fargo four hundred rest in North America, four hundred rest of the world. We had customer one hundred. Yeah, but we did that with where people said you couldn't do it.
So and then, so let.
Me ask you. I can't help, but notice what I asked, how are you different from President Trump? You kind of kind of pushed that one to the side, which listaid, you're doing your thing. I understand that it's uncomfortable to criticize him because he's still popular among the Republican base, even as you want to defeed him. So let me ask you about a specific issue, which is our approach to the Ukraine War. You know, do you think that the way that Biden has approached it is more or
less the right approach President Trump? Former President Trump has said he would get in there and negotiate end this conflict in twenty four hours. Do you think you could do that? Do you think that you know, how do you view that conflict and are you more on the side of President Trump's approach or you more on the side of Joe Biden's approach.
Well, Chris, I'll just tell you that we wouldn't even be in this situation if not for Biden's energy policies, because if we hadn't allowed all of our allies in Western Europe to come be completely dependent on Russian energy, then there's no way that Putin says I'm invading the Ukraine. But it is what it is here now, we're here now. But again, this is something where when we talk about energy policy, it's one sentence, sell energy to our friends
and allies, stop buying it from our adversaries. And you can't take the Ukraine and separate that from our biggest challenge just China. China is the largest importer of oil and gas in the world, ten million barrels of oil a day. And we've had Secretary Blinking Janet Yellen, Envoy carry all there. I don't know that any of them talked about energy when they're talking about China. This is the tool that we have.
On the question of Ukraine, though, continue support. Do you support let me ask you a specific one. Do you support the shipment of cluster bombs to Ukraine? Would you have voted in favor or pushed for all of the aid packages that we have sent, Yes or no?
Well, we need more accountability on the dollars we're scenting, but there's no.
Option we cannot And would you is there an upper limit to the level of support that you would give to them? And how would you pursue peace?
In the end, beating Putin in Europe is cheaper than World War Three, It's cheaper than NATO involvement. The most fiscally conservative thing we can do is win and beat Putin. Win for Putin is a win for China. And again our belated energy policy, we're like, oh, after Biden the withdrawal from Afghanistan and then kind of green lighting Putin's invasion by saying, well, hey, if it's an incursion, then
maybe we won't do anything. Those are all huge diplomatic signals that say, hey, come on in, Well, now we're in the spot where belated we'll go. Hey, we're going to put on sanctions on Russian oil and gas. Well, guess what, they're still selling oil and gas. You put sanctions on a commody like soybeans or oil and on global market, guess what happens? They sell it to somebody else who's buying it China. I just set China largely. Would you lift the sanctions, Well, it doesn't make any
It doesn't make any sense. You know, China, our adversaries getting oil and gas at twenty percent off. I mean a farmer and I would like to be playing twenty percent off their diesel tomorrow, but they're not. So these the sanctions, you know, maybe the feel good, but then those dollars they're buying oil from Russia using Chinese want. We are undermining the US dollar because for the first time in history, petro transactions are occurring, not in the US dollar.
It's a producing position.
What we're hearing here it's about more military or you want a military or t Ukraine, but not sanctions.
So then you also referenced Native And I'm.
Not saying we're not sanctions. I'm saying, don't critical of.
Our current sanctions regime.
I think that's fair sanctioning ucondity, sanctioned US soybeans and then you buy them from Brazilian.
Actually, we have no disagreement here. Literally whatsoever a question here?
You referenced World War three NATO membership, NATO membership for Ukraine, Yes or no?
What do you think?
Well, it certainly should come as a time because I mean, the whole point of NATO is that everybody's unified in preventing Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and the only person that's fighting and losing lives right now is Ukraine. I mean they should be getting a medal from NATO as opposed to, Hey, we may may or may not let you join.
So at their most recent summit, would you have given an extended them membership even though there's an active war zone going on.
It's not at this time, I would say, hey.
But you want to you think there should be a pathway for.
They're doing the job of NATO. That's what they're doing what NATO was set up to do.
Well, Well, it's a collective defense agreement, not necessarily an aggressive agreement. So let's say that this thing wraps up, there's a peace agreement and all that. Why should Man America's Article five protection nuclear umbrella be extended to let's say they've done boss region of Ukraine. Why is that going to nuclear war over for American security?
Well, I think again, you have to understand, Russia is not a country the way we might think of countries. I mean, everybody understands this is a series of mob bosses. I mean colin oligarchs. But and then we saw this with progosion. Who you know, it wasn't just that, Hey we've got you know, mercenary soldiers coming out of Russian jails,
you know, fighting in the Ukraine. I mean there are sixty five shell companies under what they're doing in the Wagner group, and so you know they're they're running gold mines in the Central African Republic. I mean when they were when they were quote helping out in Syria, they took over twenty five percent of Serius oil production. You know what's Putin's networth seventy billion. I mean, this is just this is just a series of mob bosses all working together. It's not a country the way we think
about it. And you're asking like really good questions about how would you negotiate with another country, But we're actually these are criminal enterprises that are operating and and sort of somehow the idea that we're going to.
Like, yeah, but they're mobs, but they got nukes. I mean, we've had a long time listen.
I mean, it's not like the Soviet Union was the easiest system to negotiate with.
We figured it out.
It was actually, frankly, even more barbaric, you know, in many respects and ways they treated each other. So like you are going to have to negotiate, you know, Shishiping. I mean, he's got his people get killed every once in a while or disappear as president. You would be put in that position regardless whether you like the system or not.
So what do you respect?
I mean, are you saying that you wouldn't respect them because their mob bosses? You wouldn't be able to talk to them. Like what's the diplomatic overture or is the end.
Goal to push out that regime optic altogether?
Well, I think we have to just focus on the American objectives. Obviously we need to do that, but we have to be smart about it. We have to have a full range of both military and economic statecraft that we're going and right now we're not applying either of those very effectively. And I and I think again, we're you know, we're in a cold war with China today, but it's much more complicated. It's not just about build
up our military and then have a strong economy. I mean, you know, Reagan provided a good model of peace through strength, but our economy, the Russian economy in nineteen eighty nine when they collapsed, was quite small. I mean, it was smaller than some of our US state. Yes, and we weren't completely interconnected. Now we have China the second largest economy in the world, and art as the number one economy.
Ours is completely intertwined. They're completely with each other. And so it's not just you know, let's you know, draw a line and then there's a set of a trading block that's all with China and a trading block with it's all with us and its allies. That doesn't work, I mean, that would that would There has to be a path forward for our little planet where everybody prospers better when you've got the ability to talk to each other instead of about each other.
Or sure no one, no one here is going to deny it something extraordinarily complex and nuanced situation. Just to put a pin on this, and we want to get some economic questions and I know you have a short about five more minutes that you have with us. Do you support I mean, would you be pushing for regime change in Russia so that you would have someone that you felt like you could work with more effectively.
I don't think you have to push for it. I mean we've got uh, we've got economics and we've got actuarial tables on our side. I mean, there will be there will be a regime change, and whether I don't know that this is something. I mean, America doesn't have a great track record on trying to drive regime changes in other countries, but we have to be we have to be fully prepared and not know what that regime
change is going to be. And that regime change, I mean we saw that there was an attempt at a regime change with progosion, and that certainly weakened the you know, between the different mob bosses. There's certainly different a power structure today than there was a month ago. And who knows, maybe it'll happen for us.
So let's do a little bit of economics. Lightning rounds my sense from you know, watching you speak reading your website as you're kind of a traditional economic conservative. So let me ask you on a number of issues at soccer and I can go back and forth here. So on the Social Security Program, do you think it should be cut? Do you think it should be left alone, or do you think it should be increased?
North Dakota, this year we were able to successfully, after thirty years of debate, close the defined benefit pension plan for state employees and at the same time protect every employee that's in it. The advances that are coming on genomic medicine, I mean, there's going to be entire disease classes that can eliminate the next ten or fifteen years. I think every actuarial table in America is off.
So just cut, keep it the way it is, or increase. And in terms of cuts, what I'm reading into what you're saying is for people who are in it, they're going to be fine. But what about younger Americans? What would you say to them?
Well, your question suggests that those are only the three choices, and I think what we have to do where we've made a commitment to Americans, we have to protect that. If we've made a commitment, you're in social Security. We have to protect that, but we also can't bankrupt America at the same time. On the other side, you have to figure out a way to be smart about doing it. And part of that has got to be economic growth, because if we don't have our economy.
Young Americans could potentially sea cuts.
Right, So if we paid in the system, I'm thirty one, Yeah, I guess I haven't paid in the system that long.
I mean my eye on the chopping block.
Like under your kind of analysis here, presumably I would benefit from the genomic you as.
A thirty one year old. As a thirty one year old, well you're going to be living to be one hundred.
But hopefully.
But yeah, I mean I want to feel, oh yeah.
Your youngsters are going to live that long. But I mean, do you expect that you're you're going to see a paycheck?
I don't know.
I mean, depending on it.
Since the government has made that commitment, the government should fulfill that pay taxes. I also know what Social Security has meant for old age poverty. I also know that it's one of the most popular social programs in the history of the country. So the American people are certainly on the side of let's figure out how to keep benefits the way they are.
Yes, and if you've got both parties agreeing that you can't touch it and it's financially and actually completely unsound.
Well you can always lift the cap. And that would very much cheat you.
Guys are saying. You guys are saying, we have something that's financially President.
We're trying to get you nailed down on what you think.
But you're saying that we shouldn't fix things that are broken. Is that what you're saying.
Well, I think what we're advocating, or what we're trying to advocate for, is a vast majority of even Republican seniors. You know, hands off my Medicare was a huge part of the Tea Party movement back in twenty ten.
Same with Social Security.
A lot of these seniors and even people who are forties fifties coming into the system feel as if that their future is uncertain. So I mean, at that very basic level, I speak to them, to those people that are like, Hey, I'm afraid.
Are you going to take my money away?
Like I barely am able to make my mortgage right now with inflation, with freaking home insurance and all this stuff. I've got a fixed income, you know, I think what was it fifty something percent of these seniors relying entire
land social security. Just speak to the concern that those people have right now, and also the people like us who are like looking at the system and saying, hey, maybe you know, let's say, haven't done so well in life, like that's at least one thing that you can rely on whenever you get old.
And I think that's why we say, at all costs, you have to protect that system for those people, the ones that you're talking about, has to be protected. Social Security, Medicaid, We've got to protect that. But the if we have we have that there, and we still have to as a country, we have to say, okay, we're protecting that, but does that preclude us from actually having a discussion across the country saying how do we do things that actually are financially viable for future generations.
I just I don't know what that means. So be a little more specific, because that's I feel like you're you know, you're not giving us a direct answer. It's part of what you would be looking at for people who aren't in the program yet, reducing the benefits or would you be looking more towards the side of Okay,
how do we bring in more revenue? Because I'll tell you, I think a lot of people look at, you know, all the money that we're spending in the Ukraine War, and it's like, there's always money for the Pentagon, there's always money for the defense industry, there's always money for the Ukraine War. But there's this constant fixation on how do we peel back the pennies that are given to ordinary Americans.
Well, you know, we're spending two trillion on complete folly around, you know, forcing an ideology around an energy policy. You know, we're going to say we're going to subsidize five hundred thousand and EV charging stations, We're going to subsidize people buying expensive EV cars, and we're going to buy batteries from who China because China controls eighty five percent of all the rare earth minerals in the world, And so we're just trading opek for something.
Are we going to use that money for social security?
Well, it certainly would be a better use because again, and you know, we figured out in this nation through markets, you know, how to you know, how to provide transportation without saying and if you want to have five hundred thousand EV charging stations and you can't get a permit to build a transmission line, and at the same time we're trying to shut down all the baseload in this country, you'd need five times and transmission lines to run those things.
So the policies that were literally spending trillions on don't make any sense economically, physics, any of that.
I'm not talking about scary, but well we are.
But I mean that would you're saying where the dollars saying some of those dollars would be all.
Kinds of dollars. It would be freed up just to fix the thing that really matter, to take care of of.
No cuts to social scary for young people? Is that? Yes?
Well you could say yes, no cuts for young people as a politician and then guess what forty or fifty years from now, where's the money coming?
But you're running for president. People want to know, you know, what do you think on this issue?
What would you do?
I think I'm honest about the fact that the thing is not actualarily sound, and so we be on the table. In fact, no, we have to protect everybody that's in the program right now. Then how do you solve a problem when there's not enough money to pay for it? You have to have growth, and part of the way you have growth is you have you get rid of
the red tape. You have innovation, not regulation. You have an energy policy that allows our economy to sprint, not not just crawl or fail, and then we stop doing things that are supporting China, like our energy policy is.
A huge win for your teams telling us that you have to go.
So you've done very well in your life, do you think that you pay too high, too low, or just about the right in terms of taxes?
And for people who have also done very well.
Well in North Dakota, we're working to eliminate income taxes because you want to have an incentive.
Well on the federal system.
So you're running for president, So how do you think the federal tax regime treats you know, your people of.
Your net worth and higher.
There's a lot of people who even publicans really are concerned about that.
I'm just curious.
You know, we very rarely get to speak to somebody like you use both high networth individual and a politician. So how do you look at the current tax regime federally, of which you would be in charge of.
Well, one of the things that I love about one of the few places government does not provide competition. One of the few places it does provide competition is at the state level, where different states can have a state with less regulation and lower taxes, and guess what, it attracts talent and capital to come to those locations. And everybody asked these questions about tax policy, like, there's not movement of talent. We should be trying to attract all
the talent in the world to come to America. This is the land of opportunity. We should be creating a place where capital and talent want to come to our country, as opposed to we drive it away. And then everybody assumes I mean, it's like if you have a bad product, then you're in business. You have a bad product and say, hey, we're losing money. What should we do. Let's raise price on our product. Well, then you go out of business because people aren't paying your product.
Think we should have lower taxes so more rich people from other countries should move here.
It's not about rich people. Okay, we have income. Years I started out with I start out with basically nothing. I mean, part of income mobility up is part of the that's part of the American dream. And this idea that there's a static class. You know that somehow it's not paying their share. I mean, you know that.
Is increasingly the case though. I mean, if you look.
At the tax paying one hundred and twenty eight thousand in California, one hundred twenty eight thousands.
Very wealthy pay as opposed to your average middle class person, the very wealthy, as a percentage of their income, pay far less.
Yeah, and it's a percentage of their income. One percent of California is pay fifty percent of their taxes and a high taxer age.
Do you think are they not say that to the one federal level? Do you think at the federal level that the tax regime is too hard on the rich or to be lowered further so we could attract whoever it is you want to attract to the country. Is that is that the policy?
I think you guys with this class warfare thing rich poor, like it's like it's like no, no, but it's like no, you're not. You're trying to You're trying to frame it in some kind of ideology about some people aren't paying enough and whatever.
We're no, we're just trying to ask you a question. Aus' running for president, and you're not answering the question. That's all we're trying to do.
I think I'm answering the question. I answered the question the way it is.
Would you change it? Do you think it's too too hard on the reds to you know, the top income bracket. If you don't want to call them the rits, just tell us what your tax policy would be.
We don't. All the programs you guys are talking about are paid for with borrowed money, and that borrowed money comes from foreign countries that buy our bonds. And so we need capital flow to the United States for us to be competitive, and we want to have a regulatory and tax regime where capital flows to our country that
ensures prosperity for everybody. I think when you've got less regulation, lower taxes than capital and talent flows in that direction, and that grows the economy, and then guess what, then everybody has an opportunity to prosper We're not in a stabut.
We appreciate your time, You appreciate the back and thank you.
Great, we appreciate you.
Yeah. Well, fun to be with all of you and happy to keep the dialogue. But you guys are at least talking about you know, not just in sound bites. We got to talk about real issues. Yeah, agree, politics, there's real policy changes where if we make the right policy change in the executive branch. I'm an operating guy. All I've ever done is I will never be a senator. I will never be a congressman. I'm not a politician. I know how to run things. I know how to
take cost out. You know, ten to twenty percent of every job in government today is some soul sucking, mindless, repetitive thing that brings no value to the person doing it and no value to the citizens. If it's ten or twenty percent, that could be four hundred thousand federal employees. It's not four hundred thousand individuals. It's ten to twenty percent of two million jobs. Yeah, it's not adding value? Can we have it? And you'd say, how are we
going to pay for solid security? Well, one way you do for that is you lower the cost of federal government. I believe in states rights. We need to we need to reduce the size of the federal government by actually following the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says that the states, you know, created the federal government, not the other way around. And the federal government and the president have a narrow
job description. It's not like do everything for everybody. It's that's reserved to the states, Comma or for the people, which is some of these things.
Going to kill us the freedom.
But I'm still there is a path forward to be able to do what you want to do, which is have secure benefits for our seniors and those are needs, and have a prosperous economy. These are not. There is a world of abundance out there, and we can create wealth in this country for everybody if it happens, particularly with the advancements that are coming in technology. We can
do that. But everybody asks, like all the questions that everybody asks in all these shows, it's like it's a fixed income and it's either we got to give it to them or take it away from those guys. That's not the way it works. We have grown our economy and will continue to grow economy. If we understand how economies work, we can lift the boat for everybody.
Congratulations I'm getting on the debate stage. We're looking forward to hearing you make the case to the American people. I know they're going to find a lot of what you have to say compellings, so thank.
You for those shows. We will give you the full time to actually lay out your views. Yeah, there you go, gradulates to the internet. I guess you played a role a little bit and making sure that we can shows like this could exist.
So we appreciate your time, sir, Thank.
You great well, thank you both for having me on.
Absolutely pleasure.