Here comes the battle over CBDCs and the Federal Reserve. Now today you're hearing about central bank digital currencies everywhere. It's all over the New cycle, and of course news that the Federal Reserve wants to roll out their own central bank digital currency. It's such a hot topic that it seems like it might be one of the main talking points between presidential candidates in the next election. We see lawmakers passing bills to prevent central big digital currencies from happening.
But do they really have the power to do that?
And that is the topic of this conversation I'm having with presidential candidate Vivic Ramaswami.
We're going to dig into.
The censorship industrial complex and if he could be elected president, what would he do about this. Now, Vivic is a young candidate, but I'm hopeful that he might have a chance.
At doing this.
He's bringing a new sense of urgency. He is crazy smart, and once you listen to this conversation you might agree. But I'd like to hear We're going to talk about the censorship industrial complex, talk about the censorship of not just speech but also money through central bank digital currencies. How he thinks the power of the president could control, potentially stop central bank digital currencies, how the power of the president could stop and limit the surveillance of the state,
what he would do to overhaul social media. We're going to talk about FED policy, what he could do to manage inflation, the debt ceiling, his plan to bring economic prosperity back to the United States. We're going to find out what his viewpoint is on bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, and so much more. It's an amazing interview, a very short one, a fast one, because he is crazy smart and articulate. So let's go ahead and just jump right in with Vivic.
All right, Vivic, thanks thanks for taking the time from your campaign trail to come talk to me. I know you've been super busy. I see you everywhere. You're definitely getting the reps in and I love what you're saying.
You're hitting a bunch of data points. So let's just go ahead and just jump right into some of the questions that I kind of have and some of the things that I think I'm kind of concerned with and my audience concerned with, and so the big topic that I see and I actually recorded an episode of my radio show the other day saying that, I think this is the single most important issue of our generation and
maybe multiple generations, and that is censorship. And we're being censored in a bunch of ways, from communication, speech, our money, all different types of things. So I want to start with that, the censorship industrial complex.
Amen, it's a big topic.
I think it's one of the most important topics. Like I said, it seems like we went from enlightened liberalism to now woke totalitarianism. Speech, like I said, financial transactions, movement. So let's just start with the surveillance state that we have and what you're thinking about that. We saw the Biden administration put together this DHS Disinformation Governance Board. Obama has been on board, you know, in Stanford, calling for a regulation of online speech. Now there's this restrict AC
that's been put forth. I think twenty five high ranking Republicans and Democrats on this bill, which to me seems like the single most dangerous piece of legislation period. What are your thoughts on that? What do you think about that moving forward?
Yeah, I mean, I mean, obviously very big topic.
I think that the number one unique threat to free expression in the twenty first century, particularly today is not just government directly silencing speech.
Through the front door.
I think the real threat is now when the government is deputizing private mechanisms to action, private actors to do through the back door what government never could get done through the front door under the constitution. So it says, oh, we're the government, we can't censor your speech. But guess what they'll do now, They'll threaten internet companies. We can go through the banking version of this in the ESG movement, but let's just stick to the social media version of
this for now. We'll just threaten a private company to say that we wanted to take down certain forms of disfavored speech or misinformation or hate speech and so on, to implement through the back door what it could not get done through the front door under the constitution. That's state action in disguise. It is lurking state action. That's actually the real threat that we face. And then they go further. They give them an attaboy on the back.
They give them a little bit of a special wrapper in the form of for example, social media companies, Internet companies getting a special form of federally endowed immunity Section two thirty C two protection that gives them a special cloak of immunity. So one of the ways I like to explain this to people is people get lost in the present right and then they take their partisan stance, and a very have a lot of difficulty separating themselves
from their partisan perspective. History offers some interesting lessons where when, say, a bookstore owner in a case called Bantam Books to sell a book but a local prosecutor didn't like the book, what did the prosecutor say? He said, I'm going to prosecute you unless you take down that book.
Now.
Customer who wanted to buy that book.
Later sued the bookstore owner and said, you took down this book I wanted to buy. Normally, that would have been laughed off the stage because that's just a private bookstore owner deciding what he does and doesn't want to sell. But the Supreme Court said, not so fast. That was actually state action in disguise, because it was the government censoring that customer for being able to buy the book,
not the bookstore owner doing it directly. If it's state action in disguise, the Constitution still applies, and there's an analogy to the immunity that government uses to coax these private companies into taking action that the otherwise wouldn't have taken to censor content. Except this related to the war on drugs. When the government wanted to fight the war on drugs, they would rather have searched and seized, you know, drugs or potential drugs off of every person they could find.
But this pesky thing called the Fourth Amendment gets in the way. So they passed a law that gave railroads a special form of immunity that immunize those railroads from being sued by passengers if those passengers were searched by the railroad, even against their consent. They said, oh, that's just a private company. Again, the Supreme Court said, not
so fast. If they're inducing a private company, even a railroad company, through immunity, to do what the government couldn't directly do to accomplish a government objective, that was still a situation where the private actor's conduct, the railroad company in this case, was subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. So I bring that back because the threats to censorship today are mostly implemented not directly through the front door, shown up at your doorstep with the police
saying you can't say something. That's what allows them to get away with saying that. Oh yes, Joe Biden speaks at the White House correspondence to dinner a week and a half ago or whatever, and I was there waxing eloquent about protecting the First Amendment. They're able to get away with the Fars because they're just doing their dirty work through the back door.
Instead.
Part of what I'm looking to do as US President is to disabuse ourselves of that farce and actually recognize that state action in disguise is still state action, and that means the Constitution still applies. So, you know, I know we got pretty thick there pretty quickly, but you know, time is scarce, and I wanted to get into the substance. That's how I look at it.
Yeah, I mean, it's always that pesky document called the Constitution that seems to get in the way. As you said, I like that reference, you know, in regards to that specifically, we saw through the Twitter files it got blown wide open that the government is working directly with these corporations
to do just kind of what you're saying. And so you think it's the two thirty that if you were able to repeal that take away those protections, then that would help protect the platforms and being able to give that privacy back, or not the privacy, but the ability to kind of freely speak.
Yeah, I would.
I would make section So there's two parts of section through two thirty. There's section two thirty C one, which is not relevant to this discussion. That's the part that says these platforms aren't liable for what individual users post.
Put that to one side.
Section two thirty c two says that even if there are states, and there are states in this country that prevent you from discriminating based on political expression or whatever else, that nonetheless the company can't be sued under those state laws because Section two thirty C two gives them a special blanket of immunity to the company. Well, what I
say is, let's make that an opt in statue. If you want that special form of immunity, you can have it, but then you're subject to the same constraint as the federal government itself, which is the First Amendment. You can't have both ways to say, you get the special governmental form of community without being subject to the First Amendment in the standards of what you do and don't take down.
So that's where I land on.
That is, if something is truly not protected speech like spam or hardcore pornography, fine, you could take it down. That's what section two thirty c two allows you to do without being sued. But if it's protected by the First Amendment, if it's political expression, then you can't take it down and not expect to be sued for it under states that protect that form of expression.
Yeah, yeah, I mean it gets tricky when you say, well, what is protected and what is and so now they're saying, first it was a threat to the democracy or a threat to national security, and now it's a threat to people, you know, hate speech and things like that, and so who calls that line on what hate speech is?
We have good doctrine on this, We have good doctrine on this. I think that I do hear that.
Response a lot.
The expression of an opinion is always protected under the First Amendment. That's the hard I mean, you can't you can't say something fraud you know, there's fraud laws that prevent you from uttering words that are false for commercial gain. There's all kinds of speech that is not constitutionally protected speech. But the shorthand version is if you're expressing an opinion it is protected. That means hate speech goes away as a category.
I like that, So on the next form of censorship. And you know, I think that money is communication and expresses my communication of value for that good or service that I want. And I believe that all freedom comes from the freedom to transact. So even though the Constitution guarantees me a freedom of assembly, if I can't pay to put gas in my vehicle, I can't go assemble. If I can't buy food when I'm there, I can't assemble speech, etc. And so then another form of communication
would become censorship of financial transactions. We're already seen a lot of that in the banking sector today through types of capital controls. I know, trying to send wire transfers over six figures gets a lot of problems for.
Me all the time already.
And now we're starting to see this get really ramped up with central bank digital currencies, and this seems to be potentially a topic that's going to be on this next platform. We see lawmakers like Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz, Tom Emmer, etc. Kind of aggressively trying to prohibit these federal CBDCs from coming in.
I guess what's your stance on that?
So I'm dead set against cbdc's. I was talking about this long before it was popular to be a talking point in political circles. You know, as much as I respect a governor who wants to take action against this, this is you know, fiat currency is a federal issue, right, so I think anything short of the right actor, which is to say, the federal government putting a stop to it, you're not going to be able to do anything other than make a political point by trying to take this
on at the state level. Though I don't blame someone for trying. It needs to be done at the federal level, because the federal government is where backstops our currency. So converting that currency into a digital currency, I think is something that is downright dangerous. Why is it dangerous? It allows the government to implement a social credit scoring system into how they actually erase value from your own bank accounts. Now,
this is not made up stuff. I mean, look at those truckers in Canada that participated in a protest last year expressing an opinion they had their bank accounts or credit cards. Ultimately credit deny to them losing money. Government is weaponizing the financial system to implement what it couldn't
necessarily do through the usual mechanisms. The usual argument that we hear in this country for central bank digital currencies is that China's doing it and that we have to keep up with the Joneses, or as I sometimes joker and keep up with the Jinpings. I think that that doesn't make sense because China's reason for adopting it is exactly what should concern us, which is power, dominion, control
and punishment. It is the ability to punish individual citizens for what they say by using their wallets as the way to get them to conform. That should cause us to run in the other direction, not to say that we want to copy China and to the people who will say, well, that's going to make the dollar less competitive or less strong relative to you on if we're not as technologically advanced and having a digital option, I
argue it the other way. I say, the dollars should be stronger if it can't be confiscated at the whim of a partisan government that's in power. That's exactly what CBDCs are designed to do. And so that's why I stand unapologetically and firmly against it, and I think we require a US president in this country that actually understands those issues deeply to be able to actually guard and hold the line against that excess and that over reach.
H Yeah.
Now, you know, with President Trump, we saw really increase in kind of this rhetoric against the Federal Reserve and sort of kind of pressure in the Federal Reserve to ease policies for the economy and things like that. And so the Federal Reserve is this quasi semi private institution that's supposed to be somewhat independent, and it seemed like Trump really started pressuring that. And so if you have the Federal Reserve, that would be the central bank, would
be the central bank digital currency. How does the independent central bank, that the Federal Reserve be influenced by a potential potential presidential candidate or president for that matter, if it does have the independence, Well, a lot of.
That could be done through the Treasury.
So the US Treasury Department is actually what's advancing some of the plans for central bank digital currencies as well. I think that the printing of money happens at the US Treasurer's the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury work together, so I think that the Treasury is in one mechanism. But then the deeper point is the Federal Reserve. The independence of the Federal Reserve is really just an artifice, you know. I think the President meets with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve regularly.
I think he selects who's.
Appointed into that position when terms expire. So I think this idea of independence is usually designed to I don't want to say, dupe the public, but to create a form of independence and legitimacy that doesn't actually exist.
I'm not even saying that I think that independence is a good thing.
I think that I don't love unaccountable bureaucrats being accountable to no one in that federal government.
But I think.
That that idea of independence itself is a bit illusory.
And then Treasury plays a role here as well.
So it's not the kind of thing that's somehow immunized from political interference. To the contrary, we see political influence all the time, and I think we could be in the.
Worst of all worlds where people believe that the reason their.
Money's being wiped out into their bank acount had nothing to do with politics, when in fact it absolutely did. And that's really that would be a version of the Chinese model right here in the United States, and it's not going to happen under my watch.
And that's why I've.
Been pretty vocal about that as part of my play form for US President.
Yeah, yeah, it's a big deal.
All it all works in there together, you know, just for the audience. The head of the BIS and I want to get into some more of the global stuff in a minute, but ahead of the BIS was out and saying, you know, we don't know who used the Hunter bill today or the thousand paces today, but with
CBDCs that would change, will have total control. Christine Leguard, head of the ECB, said that, you know, we could give some privacy for transactions of a few hundred dollars, but even that could be its problem because even one hundred dollars transaction.
Could lead to protests.
And what is she saying there, right, She's saying, we can't allow even people to control a hundred because they might not like something we're doing. It might have something to say about that. And so the total control and so it's is a very very dangerous thing talking about the FED and the quasi semi independence of that. You know, you kind of have this FED policy right now. It's sort of insane that we look to Jerome Poud these FOMC meetings every single you know, every single time, sort
of like punk Saddani Phil like this groundhog. He's going to come out and tell us what the weather's like. And now we have to look at the FED and he's going to tell us what the future of what our fate is. Are they going to ease restrictions or are we going to go into recession and lose everything? Right, He's trying to crush demand, so to speak. I guess what would be your policy in dealing with the FED?
I mean should it seems like they're trying to hold firm right here.
They're trying to reduce demand, keep inflation down while the FED while the government is trying to increase the debt ceiling, which would only be more inflationary. But we're sort of in this damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Not a very good situation to come on board and have to deal with.
What's your view on that?
What I propose is deeper structural reform of the Federal Reserve system itself.
I mean, we have over twenty two thousand employees in there.
I've said I would implement an over ninety percent headcount reduction.
But not just for its own sake.
It's to put the Federal Reserve back in its place, which is to have one narrow function stabilize the US dollar period not anything more than that. Stabilize the dollar as a unit of measurement. You know what, We've had our biggest GDP growth in this country during periods when actually the dollar was pegged to the gold standard, and then was actually at least kept stable by the Federal
Reserve even after we went off the gold standard. But when the dollar's volatile, that's an impediment to GDP growth.
The number of minutes in an hour varied.
You and I probably wouldn't be talking to each other at the same time because one of us would be on the Skype interface at one point, the other one to be on a different one. That's what happens to capital allocation and economy. It's inefficient when the dollar is this volatile. And so I could go on and talk about in some level of detail, how when the FED tries to hit two targets with one arrow, inflation and unemployment. It misses both. It's been a disastrous twenty five year experiment.
But what I would do the punchline, is put the FED back in its place, stabilize the US dollar as a unit of measurements, period, nothing more. I don't need twenty two thousand of year to do that. I probably don't even need two thousand of you. That's an over ninety percent head count reduction. And it's also a lesson in administration, which is that when you have thousands of people show up to do a job that they shouldn't have been doing in the first place, they find things
to do and usually mess it up. And I think that's a deeper cancer in the administrative state overall. It's definitely a problem with the Federal Reserve, and that's part of why I've been crystal clear as US President. I would fix that in a heartbeat. And that's a big part.
I'd like to ask a little bit more detail on how you might actually do something like that, because from my viewpoint, and I think a lot of people's viewpoint, maybe from a more of an Austrian lens, anytime you're manipulating the money supply, you're going to get this volatility. So how would you go about stabilizing the currency that way.
Take a basket of commodities and peg the dollar to it. So it's like the equivalent of going back to the gold standard, except instead of just gold, you use basket of commodities, including commodities like gold, silver, nickel, and so on, but also farm based commodities, a broad.
Basket of commodities. Stabilize the US dollar against that period. That's how I do it.
It could work.
I mean, it would put the government back into some form of austerity, which is never popular.
Yes, no, but I think it would be actually reasonably popular if explained to the American people in the context of my GDP growth agenda. So I'm talking about unshackling the US energy sector. I say no to this climate cult. Drill, frack, burn coal, embrace nuclear. We're going to take the straight jacket off the American economy, put people back to work,
stop paying people to stay back home. So a lot of what I'm doing elsewhere is part of a radical pro growth agenda in this country measured against that backdrop.
Absolutely, this kind of reform of the federal reserve.
Stabilizing that dollar against the basket of currencies actually feeds into more of that GDP growth. So I think it will be quite popular as part of a broader pro growth policy.
So then the argument would be that it would be it would be somewhat of an austerity measure because you can't increase the money supply arbitrarily. However, if you go into some pro growth policies, then you could increase the growth and then you would be able to offset it that way. The unfortunately, the American more than offset it.
I think that actually this would further foster that growth itself, because a lot of that spending from the government are themselves anti growth policies, directed towards, for example, subsidizing people to stay home, which itself is an impediment to GDP growth.
So I don't think it's just an offset.
I think it's part of a broader pro growth Agenda's an amplifier of that pro growth agenda itself.
A lot of the a lot of the well, I was going to say, you know, unfortunately, I hate to say this, but a lot of the public is somewhat let's say uneducated. If not ignorant about these types of policies. They don't understand how the sausage is made. They don't
understand how value is created or transferred. And so to sell this to the public at a time when that would be pulling back incentives or i just say, entitlements to them in light of a trade off of having a better future of having this pro growth would.
Be very difficult.
I've often thought that any candidate running on a campaign to reduce benefits to anybody's probably gonna have a slim chance of being elected.
Does that, well seem like it's a threat to you.
Well, look, that's why I kind of frame it a little bit differently.
Democrats talk about dealing with national debt through tax increases, Republicans talk about express spending cuts. I'm framing what I'm doing is offering a better third way economic growth itself, which means we all make more money. And so I think that actually that message in a bipartisan way has
been resonating quite a bit. I mean, I'm talking mostly to Republican audiences since we're in the middle of a primary, but even Independence and Democrats, I think, come along with a message where the plan is we all make more money.
Through what we actually produce.
And I think that that's the right way to handle this, rather than the way Republicans might otherwise handle it, which is just talking about which spending cuts we need to get the House in order. Put that to one side. Do that against the backdrop of GDP growth. You then have actually much more consensus around which to deliver that.
So I think it's actually gonna be a political winner for us.
We'll see, yeah, I mean, instead of having to choose one negative over another, maybe you can kind of have both, to your point, a third option in the middle that could drag it forward. So it seems like, you know, anytime a nation has gotten this high of a debt to GDP, it's always spelled disaster or a sort of teen you read on that on the brink of that at one hundred and twenty hundred, twenty percent debt to GDP level really want to get over like a ninety percent debt to GDP.
The debt just drags down the economy so much.
Again, there's two ways. There's two ways to play with that ratio. One of them is to make GDP go up. So that's a big part of the unleashing the energy sector putting people back to work that I'm talking about.
But you're hit, You're saying it exactly the right way.
I just wanted to remind you debt to GDP, there's still an ingredient there called GDP.
Ye we're able to use to control for that.
Sure, you know, even with the FED policy right now where they're trying to crush demand, right, And that's one side of the equation. If inflation was too high, you could also add more goods and services to the economy. Yes, you don't have to energy demand oil.
Gas, etc. That's a big driver of that inflation too.
So yes, we're purposefully constricting supply in the name of some climate agenda, and I think that's a big part of the problem.
And then and then on top of that, what about the regulations, because regulations themselves are inflationary. I mean, I think Trump had run on a campaign of repealing three regulations for every new one that was imposed, which I think he had actually exceeded. I would imagine you must have some policy to pull back lots of regulations.
Oh yeah, I mean, I mean pro growth and deregulatory go handed glove together. I just think in certain cases we have to take some of these government agencies and shut them down because I think the problem is, long after the president is gone, the managerial class and that Leviathan, that beast in the administrative state lives on. That's why I'm not just focused on reforming the administrative state. I
want to gut it. We will be shutting down many of those government agencies we've already I don't know finalist that we have to shut down and agencies that frankly will never come back, and I think that'll be for the better of the country.
What about you, know, you are a very young president presidential candidate, which I'm in favor for. I've seen what's happened to Nel Salvador with President Bukaylee.
He's done an amazing job. I feel like you kind of get this new energy.
I'm afraid that we have seventy five and eighty year olds in office that are making policies on cutting edge technology that would be that the would be a massive mistake restricting these policies, specifically around cryptocurrencies and AI. I mean, you got Elizabeth Warren literally running on an anti crypto policy.
Now Kamala is going to regulate AI.
Oh my goodness.
Yeah, I can think of no greater disaster for humanity than putting Kamala Harris in charge of AI. But let's think about, you know, the AI debate for a second. I mean, this is where I get people to just pause. What do you think happens if we apply handcuffs to the United States but China still rems free. You think you've actually, let's take legitimate risks, did you've controlled those
risks or do you think you've actually made them worse? Well, if China's not adopting those same constraints, why on earth would we adopt those constraints either. Now, I think there are risks, but it's like gain of function research. It didn't stop a global pandemic, it created one. Yet in the name of stopping a global pandemic, and even the name of even having banned here in the United States, who went to China and you know, at least hell
on the world thereafter. So I think people need to just think a little bit more clearly about some of these more complex threats rather than just engaging in the virtue signaling of saying something about it.
I think that cryptocurrency regulation is.
I mean, our existing financial markets are already burdened by a cumbersome regulatory regime. That crypto and bitcoin offer at least an alternative scaffold that we could actually learn from to understand how broken our existing security and commodities regulation infrastructure is in this country. Instead, they're running in the other direction to say we're going to ensnare or the new thing in that existing framework as well.
I think it should be the other way around.
I think that having an opt out system actually takes us back to the first principles that you govern the way we regulate other securities and commodities already under a broken regime.
So that's where I land on that.
Now, I know our times running short, so I don't know, Maybe we have time for one more question, but I'm curious your stance. You mentioned crypto bitcoin with the incumbents, as I already kind of mentioned Elizabeth Warren, I'm throwing out some name Christin Laguard, etc. And even Trump. Unfortunately we're not friends of bitcoin. And you mentioned that you're very pro making the dollar strong, and so of course having a challenger potentially would weaken the dollar, at least
in their viewpoint. So I'm curious your stance on bitcoin. Are you running on a pro freedom, pro choose, pro opt out, pro bitcoin platform or do you see.
That as a threat to the dollar.
No, I don't see this as a threat to the dollar.
And I said stabilize the value of the US dollar is what I said, So anti volatility there. I actually think that more freedom is good, and I think that this is an occasion to actually cause the existing establishment financial system to look ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves why we're so threatened by alternatives. Instead, competition breeds innovation. I think that's actually that's actually something that those who are even strong proponents of the dollars should actually invite you,
don't you know. Hardship is I say this in sort of cultural contexts, that hardship is not the same thing as victimhood. Right, Hardship is what helps you rediscover who you really are. I think that applies equally.
In this context.
Right, if you're having competition could be a form of hardship that's not victimhood.
That can help you rediscover who.
You are or should be too, in the way we run our monetary and financial system here. So that's my broad my broad posture, and I think that actually having the opt out, I think is a valuable disciplining function. Now, I think that gets complicated when you have people who have engaged in the opt out, but people who have exchanged, et cetera. Say I want to opt back in but under selective circumstances and have the best of both worlds. That's where the discussion gets cost complicated on on crypto
policy and bitcoin policy. But in terms of first principles, I'm all in for having a parallel opt out. I think that's actually what holds the existing system's feet to the fire for the better.
Yeah, and you know when you started Strive asset management and went on the went went kind of on the offensive with that, It's one thing that really brought me to you and and really having that like, let's just build the world we want kind of we can build, uh, through through a competitive landscape. Through through through, I think is a is a competitive capitalist system we can continue to push and progress and provide better and so I
think bitcoin can work in that way. You know, stable coins have pushed US dollars dominance all around the world, and so it's innovation in the private market, but it's actually done a lot to accelerate and really cement the dollars position globally. We don't really need a CBDC because the US dollars stable coin market has already gotten there.
So I think that's a good, good take.
I know we're kind of out of time, so I guess we can cut it off there. I enjoyed it making the time, you know, so I think that.
Look as a thirty seven year old and the first millennial ever to run for US president as a Republican, I've come from innovative backgrounds of having built a biotech built a multillion dollar biotech company. I you know, started Strive asset Management to compete against the ESG cartel. I don't believe that government is the only solution. I happen to be running for president, but I'm not a politician. It's part of why I actually have been trying to deliver most of the solutions I've worked.
On through the market itself.
Compete with Blackrock win that way, and you know, Strive aggregated over five hundred million dollars in AUM and its first three months after the launch of its first fund last year. So I believe in innovation, I believe in competition, I believe in market solutions, and I believe in winning.
I just happened to be running for US president this time because I think we live in a moment where the next US president is well positioned to lead a national revival in a way that I don't think I could or anyone else could in just the private sector alone. And so I think it's the uni moment we live in that calls me into this, and I think we share a lot of your bitcoiners and otherwise, I think we share deep seated instincts about how reform of the
monetary system is right over the target. And I'm not going to be hiding from that. I'm going to make this election in part, a referendum on that very set of issues. And so you know, for folks who want to support me, I appreciate that we're going to actually look into adding crypto and bitcoin as ways that people can even contribute to the.
Campaign, even if it's a dollar.
I want to be at the center of that debate stage, driving this conversation in the Republican Party. And so if people go to vivek twenty twenty four dot com even if you give a dollar, that would supercharge this movement and put me in a position to really elevate the conversation you and i've been having mark to the center of that Republican GOP debate stage. If people go to the website and give a dollar today, I appreciate it, So thank you for that.
Man, shift the window, put some support. Let's get this conversation going. All right.
With that, We'll let you go. I appreciate you taking the time, and I'm paying attention. I'm supporting you all along the way.
Thank you, I appreciate it. Take care, all.
Right, that's a rap.
Hopefully enjoyed this conversation with Vivic like I did. Boy, he certainly brings a young energy that I think this country could use. And he is crazy smart and he's got good ideas, and of course he's not from the establishment. He's from the outside. But do you think an outsider, a young outsider like this, has a chance. I'd like to hear your thought. Leave me a comment down below. Does he have a chance?
Yes or no? Would you vote for him? Yes or no?
Let me know in the comments, of course, as always, give me thumbs up if you like it. If you don't give me thumbs down, that's okay, but leave a comment let me know. Subscribe to the channel so you know when I put new videos out, and that's what I got to your success.
I'm out.