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 presidential candidate former Congressman Will Hurt. It's great to see you, sir, Thanks for joining us.
I appreciate you having me on so.
Absolutely from my own home state of Texas, so it's always fun to see you. I actually kind of forgot that you guys were Oh yeah, right, we have a big Aggie audience.
I'm really happy about that.
We always ask the same question to everybody who joins us here in studio, why are you running for presidents?
I think America needs a better choice than a rematch from hell between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I think we're faced with a number of generational defining challenges. The Chinese government trying to surpass US as a global superpower, the fact that every industry is going to get impacted by advanced technologies like artificial intelligence. We continue to have a growing humanitarian crisis on the border, and our kids and grandkids are scoring the lowest on maths, science, and
reading in this century. These are the issues that we should be addressing. And these are the reasons I'm in the race because we need someone that has a mix of foreign policy experience, domestic policy experience, technology experience in order to address this. And one of the things I've learned from my time when I was in Congress, way more unites us than divides us. Most people wouldn't think that's the case if you only look at social media
and watch cable news. But I think we're better together. And the only way we're going to continue to make sure this experiment called America exists for another two hundred and forty seven years is if we solve these problems together.
You can read a poll as well as easily as I can, and it's certainly former President Trump still has
a very dominant position within the Republican primary. What is yours sort of theory of what led him to find such appeal within the Republican base and leads them to still really, you know, support him so strongly in spite of everything that we saw happen under his presidency, and know a lot of broken promises to taxcuts for the rich, in spite of him positioning himself as populous, to say nothing of January sixth, stop the steal in the what is it ninety one criminal charges that he's facing.
And didn't build a wall and made it harder for agriculture in many parts of the states. You know, the list goes on of his deficiencies. Look, he is someone you know when he ran he had one hundred percent name I d He is someone that has has I think tapped into an anger and fear of the future, and he's soaking those flames. And there's no question that he's the front runner in this GOP race. There's no question that I'm a dark horse canon in this race.
I understand that and appreciate that. But when you really start thinking and look at state by state, his front runner status is not as dramatic as it is in some of the national polling. And so there is a way we don't not have to accept Donald Trump as the nominee. It's not a fad a complete that Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee, and it's a matter of galvanizing all those other folks who want positive actions. But we asked if we have to win, right, like,
that's the reality if we elect Donald Trump. And I've made it very clear, I think Donald Trump is running for president to stay out of prison. He is not running to make America great again. And if we put Donald Trump up as a nominee, we are giving four more years to a Democrat. And that the opportunity for Republicans is to appeal to those independents and Democrats who are sick and tired of the direction the Democratic Party is go is going. And that's that's the upside, that's
the opportunity. And we need more people voting in primaries. Only twenty three percent of the country votes in primaries, and that's part of the PROBMB too.
It's true, it's an important point you're considering your dark horse status. Didn't get on the debate stage last time. A lot of critics I think of people who are running against Trump, at least for the big race, is that you're splitting the ticket just like you did in
twenty sixteen. So if you can't even get on the debate stage, and you said you'd reconsider it by the fall, why not support somebody like Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley or anybody who you may agree with more who may actually have a chance of rolling up the anti Trump Volde.
Well, I've made it very clear that by by late fall early winter, you know, it needs to be some consolidation. So so I think that's the right strategy. I think Governor's knew New from New Hampshire had articulated that a while ago, and I subscribed to that. And so we're still I've been in this for ninety days. I believe one quarter we've we have the lower we had started with, the lowest name id and the least amount of money. And this was never about peaking today or tomorrow. I
got peaking in late fall. And so we're going to continue to push this. And and if and if your viewers watch, your subscribers want to help, go to herd from America dot com and a right and help it brother out. Because because if you want to see something, if you want to see something, something different, right, And so so I said, I'm a reasonable guy, all right, So you.
Were saying that you see Trump as coming to power as part of an expression of this rage that not just I think the Republican Party. I mean, I think you can see a similar angst and anger that led to the rise of Bernie Sanders and very different people with very different solutions, but I think that was a commonality.
Where do you think that comes from? And do you think that the you know, version of the Republican Party that you know you've queue very closely too, do you think that was part of creating that rage through failures around you know, do you regulating Wall Street? Through failures around the Iraq War, et cetera.
So this rage begins with a lack of trust in our institutions. And we've seen that lack of trust and this is not just a recent phenomenon. It's been going on for decades. And that that that mistrust, specifically within the federal government, comes from when people run for office, they say one thing, and when they get in office, they do something else. And so that exacerbates this lack of trust. While people are like, you're upset repeal and
replace Obamacare. Everybody talked about it, but when Donald Trump came into office, they weren't able to do it, and so that's part of the problem. And so for me, the way I've always been successful is talk about the things you can solve, right, And that's how I continue to get elected in a district that nobody thought a black Republican could win, the twenty third district that I represented for six years with seventy two percent Latino, And when I first ran, nobody thought I had a chance.
And the way I want one was because I talked
about things people cared about. I solved problems that were impacting the community, and then I went around and said, hey, this are the things that I did, and so that's how we build trust back in this And so yes, I believe that these opinions and things that I articulate are reflective of probably a majority of the country, and the majority of the country wants someone who's actually going to solve problems and not just you know, have some fancy slogan on TV.
Well, what do you think about abortion? Do you think abortion is hurting the Republican Party today?
Yes, I think it is. I'm of the opinion I've been pro life my entire career. If the Senate put a fifteen week abortion ban on my desk, I would sign it. But the other thing, now that it's back in the state's hands, the states that are restricting this need to be the greatest places on the planet for
healthcare from others, for neo natal health care. The fact that in some community, especially black women, black women having kids in the United States are more likely to die during childbirth than in many parts of the developing world, to me, that's outrageous, and that's an issue that, Look, we can champion that, and our governors need to be pushing that. Our elected officials need to be pushing that.
And so I think that's one of those issues that you know, look, I don't think you're going to change people's opinion on this brought a topic, but you can be talking about things that we can all agree on.
So, speaking of issues, people are very interested in big auto worker strike against the Big Three going on right now. You have somewhere around seventy five percent of the American public on side of the workers. Are you on the side of the workers?
Well, I'm on the side of one. I'm not a big government Republican, So the federal government doesn't have a role in this two having led organizations. You know, when the organization benefits, the people involved in the organization should benefit, right, And so I don't know the details of the case, but yeah, if you're having a company that's making a lot of money, then you should make sure your workers
are benefit. It's the workers right now, you know. So my issue with unions, you know, look, if you want to join a union, join a union, that's fine. Just don't force people to join a union, right, is my position on this.
So look, I think that I mean, you're in favor of right to work, Like, would you work for a federal right to work passage?
I would not do that. On the on the federal government side, I think there's difference when it comes to the federal unions. Now again I've worked with a lot of the existing federal unions, whether it's a border patrol union, even SEIU, you know, when I was in Congress. We work closely with them. But again, if people want to be able to join a union, they should.
I want to ask you about Ukraine as well. This isn't interesting. So we have some polling up. We can go ahead and put this up there on the screen. We've got a majority of Republicans who are opposing Ukraine funding right now, considering your stance on this, and if the majority of the party doesn't support it, why do you fall on the other side.
Because it's the right thing to do. And here's why, And I'll explain why as a less be here in Washington today is specifically a pertinent question for sure. Yeah, So the issue is nobody wants to see a forever war in Ukraine. Nobody wants to see a lack of accountability of the resources or the material that we send to that right, Like, these are things that we can all agree on. One of my long term problems I have with the federal government, like our ability to account
for dollar spend is crazy. If you want to know how many how much money DoD you spent on office supplies last month, it would take you a year to figure that problem out. So those two are problems. However, the United States of America built an international order that benefits us, and when we don't defend that international order,
that hurts us. And the reality is if Ukraine doesn't win, And the way I define winning, right, the way I define winning is pushing the Russians out of all of Ukraine that includes Crimeria and Donbos and I'm probably more aggressive than most on that position. And so so if we don't do that and the Russians, let's say we go, the Russians go back to February twenty twenty two, that's a win in a victory for Russia. Eastern Europe is not going to care about what Western Europe or the
United States of America thinks. Western Europe is not going to care what America thinks. The fact that macront the French president this summer, I want say it was June was in China talking to an American newspaper saying that, hey, America, don't make us choose, don't make franch choose between the US and China. Ukraine losing is going to exacerbate that problem, right, And I think the biggest issue that the United States of America is facing is this new Cold War between
US and the Chinese government. So these things are connected. And I also, and again I'm sorry for my long winded answer, I think we would not be fighting a war the way we're trying to make the Ukrainians write this war. So you know, the issue is not the percentage of how much money we're spending. It's about five percent of the entire DoD budget that is going to
dismantling the Russian military. The fact that Russia has to go to North Korea to get weapons is a signed things aren't going that well, right, And so I think the speed at which just equipment and support goes is part of is part of the problem.
So you would actually ramp things up, then spend more. Provide would you provide the long range missiles they're asking for?
We're healthy, Yes, I would provide like so so troops on the ground, right, Ukrainians on the ground, I would not have I appreciate it.
If Ukrainians, if the Ukrainian military uses a long range missile to a crime in Rostov well established?
Okay?
Yes, so that with US provided weapons, with US.
Provided weapons and and the counterdar that is going to be is that escalation? Yeah? Right? And and so so I think that the concept of escalation has has gotten out of control. When the when the Iranians provided ua vs to this conflict, did we escalate against Iranians?
Know?
When the Chinese provided additional support to the Russians, did we escalate against them? Right? And so so will the Russians use an attached a nuclear weapon? Right? Putin's rule and we've found out what is Vladimir Putin going to do when he's pushed? We saw Progosion decide that and instead of escalating, what did he did? He capitulated? Right now? He ended up killing them killing it. Now. Guess what if I was prodotionan, I probably wouldn't be flying around in Russian military equipment.
In Russia, no question, you know.
So so so again, if we want at the moment, is is Ukraine winning? Well? The answer to that is no, yeah, sure, but is Russian winning well?
It depends on what you look at.
Right, have an industrial base, They've ramped up their defense, spending their artillery production. All that outpaces the sanctions actually haven't worked. I mean, I want to flip things around. So I believe that you served in the CIA at the time.
That we were at the war in Iraq.
That's correct, right?
Okay, So the Iranians were providing e fps, these very deadly IEDs that killed upwards of hundreds of American soldiers. Don't you think that that was an attack and an escalation on our behalf.
Or against us?
So if the Iranians are providing she and militia's IEDs that are killing Americans. A lot of people in this country at that time understood that as an attack or indirect attack against us. How is it not vice versa when we're doing that to Russia? And then what would stop them from doing things similar to us?
So so, in my opinion, the error, and that was we should have attacked the Iranian locations interact, not the wrong. We we knew where, we knew where the Kods force was. Right, Let's let's go back to Costom Sulimani.
Right.
I think the attack on Costom Sulimani was absolutely correct and and and did what was a response by the Iranians in that moment They telegraphed launching missiles at a US location that that that injured nobody and then then then it was squashed. So in that case we knew. So that is the example of how the Iranians were going to escalate. And we have an example already of how vitamin putin is going to escalate and and so will that force the the the the the Russian to
do something? So do you think that Russia would be able to find if they attack something in Poland or if they hit somebody in the US, and you get the you get NATO forces in the right for for Vladimir Putin, well for US too. So but but again it's it's you know, what is what is the what have we seen the Russians do? And if the goal is you.
May be correct, You might be correct, just like you know, the bet was right in terms of Iran's response to the assassination of a costum stool of mine.
But if there is.
Even a small percentage chance that we could end up in a world destroying nuclear conflict, isn't that something that we have to take seriously?
Of course we take it seriously. But you make a calculation on whether does that prevent you to stop from doing something? Well, so let let's play that out. If so we go to let's say Zelensky for some reason system with Latimir Putin and decides to have say, hey, we're to go back to February twenty twenty two, how how does the world change from that? Okay, so we prevented a nuclear war, but then does that exacerbate America's role in the world. And here's why I'm concerned about
this issue. Because of this order that we built, we become the greatest economy on the planet. And if the Chinese government surpasses us in their percentage of global GDP, in their ability to work and increase their access to allies, that means the dollar is not going to go as far as it has as we've gotten used to. It are four to one caves, and retirement accounts are not going to go as far as we expected it. Our kids are not going to have access to the best
paying jobs. These are the consequences because no one's going to care about us because there's no such things the security guarantees anymore. There's no such things as improving a cooperation between our economy.
We have no security guarantee with Ukraine. Let's be clear. I mean we do with NATO. But essentially you said at the start, you said I don't want to sign U up endless war. You effectively we're talking here about twenty four billion. The intelligence community brief senators yesterday. They said this is just the first of as we've already provided one hundred billion, the same amount we provide the Afghan national security forces over twenty years of war.
If this is what they need on a quarterly basis. Aren't you signing us up for an endless war?
I mean that's one hundred billion a year expenditure for what you're talking about. Ukraine is our sixty seventh largest trading partner. Russia is like number twenty five. Fifty percent of world GDP is China and the rest of Asia. They don't care about Ukraine. I was just in India. They could care less about what's going on in there.
You shouldn't you be managing this relationship that's happening here as supposed to risking a nuclear conflict over security non security guaranteed country and talking again about something irrelevant to the global economy.
Well, there was a security guarantee between US, the Russians, the United States, the Budapests memorandum when the Ukrainians willingly gave up to the weapons. Right, So it's not NATO, but there is there is an agreement in place. So how is the money being used? What are the objectives? Right? Like, these are valuable questions. We should be suspicious of the amount of money that is being spent. And I'm not saying, you know, blank shack or anything, but but these are
some of the conversations that need to be had. I wasn't. I wasn't in the the intel briefing and stuff like that. But when I'm president, we're going to be having these issues because guess what, what was the failure in Iraq? Right? The invasion Iraq was a failure? Right, it was in failure because it was based on flawed intelligence and you
ignored information on the ground. The consequences of that was long term you know, the number of deaths, destabilization in the region, right, and then a long term impact on the socio political fabric of Iraq. Right in in Soul Syria, in Syria. But there was zero plan post invasion, right, there were there, There was of course no no, no, But I agree, I agree, I agree with that. Right, But if you're going to go, you need to have you need.
To have a part in your ideal world. Because this is one of the things that I just struggle to understand. What does the endgame in Ukraine look like? Because what we were but we were sold I mean, that's a nice thing to say, but it's not anywhere close to reality. And we were sold the idea that Okay, we've got this counter offensive coming, let's do what we can. We're gonna ship more aid, We're gonna, you know, really fund
this thing to the hilt. They're going to have a chance to break through and at least disrupt this land bridge that the Russians have to cry it didn't happen. So what is the strategy now? What does it look like to bring what has been a brutal and horrific conflict that has devastated so many people's lives.
And the Ukrainians are doing all of this. The Ukrainians are doing all this. We were out but without air superiority, right, we would never be fighting that war that way, and so so theer. But we're also we're also restricting how they can use the equipment.
So what so lay that out for me? So what are you advocating for specifically here?
Continue to let Poland and again now we have palms with Poland today, right Because again, if I was advising today Zelenski or yesterday, I guess, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, the Ukraine deal. If I was, if I was advising Zelenski, I wouldn't be saying, hey, be critical of your partners that are helping you, right, And I think that was a mistake with Poland. But give them F sixteen's right,
let them use the equipment the bomb rush. And again, so this notion that so y'all think that if if Zelensky attacks sites, that he's already attacked.
With drums, with his drunes, with his eniings.
Okay, so Vladimir Putin's going to launch your nuclear weapon into San Francisco.
Maybe bomb's leviv or maybe that accidentally goes across the border into Poland. And Article five gets uh, yeah, and now we're in a full blink. Sure, And even if the nukes don't go, half a million people lost limbs already in Ukraine, outpacing some of the out of some of those prosthetic statistics that came out of the.
First World War. I've been to the grades in France. We don't need any of that over.
Here, especially over I agree with that. I agree with that.
Okay, we're obviously there's a lot that we could get.
Of course, I do actually want to go These.
Are the kind of debates that I wish we had more often, right about, Yeah, that's why we had that's the premise. Yes, we don't have a time later, which is kind Yeah, absolutely.
I did want to ask, so you worked in the CIA. Yeah, we've always been curious ask somebody who wasn't there. Do you think the CIA had anything to do with the assassination of John F.
Kennedy. Oh, I'm not equipped to answer that, like like c I A like official, I don't like you got So here's here's what I always say about There's two things about movies about the CIA that kind of like, you know, rubbed me the wrong way. It always shows that like when you're handling an asset, like their lives is like throwaway, like my most my one job. These are people that are giving us information to keep our country safe. My number one job was to keep them safe. Right.
I would never do something with an asset that would that would ultimately hurt Okay, and then like like that, like the CIA is going to violate laws in the United States? Right now, what's happened? So no, No, it was a different you know, I started in October two thousand, right, and so THEA was very different from the time when we were doing things in Central America and even in
in in Vietnam. And you know, my job was to stop terrorists from blowing up our homeland, right to prevent Russian spies and chinesevies from stelling our secrets and to put you know, nuclear weapons flippers out of business. And I always tell people, if they knew how many threats to the country they are, valid, valid threats they were, most people wouldn't come out of their homes, right. But it was a job that I loved and enjoyed and got to do it in exotic places.
Okay, Well, I always wanted to ask, so we got a non committal answer.
There you go.
We appreciate you joining you, sir, and what you can shout out your website.
Yeah, sure, heard for america dot com.
All right, thank you sir, Thank you.
M