Vivek Ramaswamy: Trump’s Sweeping Victory, & What It Means for the Future of Government Bureaucracy

So what it is now a little over 25 hours after Donald Trump won the majority of the popular vote, about half the Latino vote, overlong majority of the electoral college, just all three branches of government. Amazing. Yeah. Both houses of the Congress and the executive branch. How did that happen? I think it happened because it was a rejection of what the modern left has put on offer, which in some ways was a great favor to the rise of this country.

You need something to actually provoke a rebellion like the one that we had. That's right. I also think that it is a feature of the leader who actually led this entire movement. It was very personal to Donald Trump too. Yes. And I think that's one of the things I've appreciated is that I wrote this like the morning after the lecture, the afternoon after and it just felt right to me.

He's not actually the thing that I've learned as I've gotten to know him over the last year, much better is he's not an ideal log or a policy wank and he doesn't pretend to be one. But he is a badass actually. And I think the nation. And I think the nation. Welcome to Tucker Carlson show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. And they're not censored, of course, because we're not gatekeepers.

We are honest brokers here to tell you what we think you need to know and do it honestly. Check out all of our content at Tucker Carlson dot com. Here's the episode. The nation needs a badass as it's commander in chief right now. And democracy kind of works actually in the end. Like the people really knew what they needed and they showed up in droves to put the right person in office.

So I just think it is kind of one of these rare inspiring moments in history where the people knew what they wanted. They would not be shaken from their will. He would not be shaken from his will. And I loved being in Marlago that night where it was just kind of interesting where everybody else is myself to include is just like really joyous about what's happening. And I'm sitting next to Donald Trump and he's sitting there and he's just, yep, this is exactly how it was supposed to be.

Wait till it comes in. All right. Now we're going to the convention center. And this is where I was destined to be and what I was put here to do. And I think the people of this country right now want somebody who has that level of self-confidence and conviction to bring that back for the country. And so I just think it was kind of a beautiful moment of democracy working. It goes beyond policies. Just like the persona of the country is actually what we recovered.

Yeah. I mean, I've spent eight years watching Republicans, Kishton, Trump's ass in public. Yeah. And I'm always feel a little nauseous. I love Trump just personally because I know him well. But I hate hearing people say, it's all fake. It is. It's like now. I just, I have personally got shot. I just, I realized not only do I really like Trump, I'm amusing and I really respect Trump. And I mean that when I'm saying it. I'm not, I'm no reason to kiss his ass. Yeah. And I mean that.

And I felt that at night. I think actually for me, that's been a bit of a journey as well. I don't know him as well as you knew him anyway. But at this point in time, yeah, he's the right guy to lead the country. Exactly. He's actually the right guy to lead the country. You go through phases of taking, maybe I'm a big and true honest, but you know, taking Trump seriously, Trump is eccentric. I mean, that's just a fact. And you know, he got elected in 16, not accidentally.

There were reasons he got elected. But he said to himself many times and it's true. I was there. He did not expect to win. And it was kind of this, you know, on the road with the great full dead kind of thing, you know, it was like shambolic. You know what I mean? This did not feel that way at all. It felt purposeful. It felt like he was living out his destiny and the nation's destiny. It felt very heavy. That's how felt that night. It was like, it's like a conviction that this is my destiny.

This is the nation's destiny. And America has this great tradition. By the way, we believe in our own manifest destiny. Yes. It's just like we had no reason to believe it. We have no, you know, basically we have no logic behind it. It's just that we know that we're born to be the greatest nation. That's an example for everybody else of what's possible for human capacity. Yes. This is the country that does it. And we had no reason to believe that other than the fact that we do.

And I think that that's the kind of leader we need right now to bring that back. And that's Donald Trump as a person. So in some ways, Trump's story is America's story. Trump's comeback is now hopefully America's comeback. And I actually actually just think it's going to play out that way in the next couple of years. The national spirit's going to be back. You'll see in the composition of the electorate, by the way. A lot of young people. That was probably the biggest demographic shift.

Just came in a title wave before, which I was particularly passionate about seeing just time right now. Totally agree. And, you know, I think it's just this moment where we're going through a great kind of spiritual. I mean, spiritual in the religious sense here. I mean, the civic sense, but a spiritual revival of American identity. Clearly. And like that was that was the pinnacle of what we saw on Tuesday night.

There was a moment, I think right around the time he was shot and Elon endorsed him within moments. I think it was looking back, you know, a pivot point. The whole thing. But where I think or I myself felt this way, like, why are we on the defensive? People who vote for Donald Trump, why are we embarrassed? There was this very successful effort to make people feel ashamed for supporting Trump. And it worked for, I mean, eight years anyway.

And then in one moment, it just evaporated and you saw like 22 year old sorority girls. That's right. You know, with Trump hats and you're like, wait a second. No one's embarrassed about supporting Trump anymore. And they're wearing a Trump out of Midtown Manhattan. Totally. Who would do that? Nobody would have done that three years ago. I think, I think it's a beautiful thing for the country. I mean, it started a little bit with you saw it in the business elite community.

I mean, Elon was endorsement was obviously huge. But I think this has been percolating for a little while. I was really probably the thing I was most gratified by after the election is the next morning, the number of either calls or messages I got from real serious business leaders, billionaires and different domains or whatever. They didn't have to do this, but if you have them shared with me, look, I think you were an important part of giving me the permission to support Donald Trump.

100% or give me the permission to at least stand up against whatever left-wing orthodoxy in a way that they couldn't have. And I think a lot of other people played important roles in that as well. I mean, Elon probably played the biggest role in giving people that permission. No, but you're from exactly that world. And like, just to be super blunt, you're from the credentials that Mark and member of that class.

And which, which matter to some people and members of giving them the, well, it's our whole system is based on them. Yeah. Right. And so, and GD to some extent is like this David Sacks and Elon above all, but you're definitely in that world. And, you know, they made a concerted effort to make certain that people like you would never admit to liking Trump. That's right.

And even it's liking Trump and standing for a rejection of the left-wing orthodoxy of the last four or five years that reached a fever pitch and peak. So, I had to step down for my job. You know, I first met after I stepped down for my job as a biotech CEO. And you know, I wrote my first book. For me, that was actually kind of cathartic.

And then I just wanted to other people to be able to experience that as well, to be able to like spread the possibility of what it feels to actually speak your mind in the open. It's like a, it's like a liberating experience. It's like a deep personal sense, a liberating experience. And I actually just wanted more people to be able to experience that. What's the point of having a billion dollars if you can't even express your opinion in public? Totally agree.

But now, I think that that's mostly, it's like actually mostly behind us. Can I just push a little bit on that point though? I mean, you and I talked a lot before you ran for president. And I remember thinking, you know, most people imagine that if you make a lot of money, you made a lot of money, young, that that gives you the freedom to say whatever you want. But of course, the opposite turns out to be totally the opposite. Right. So the more you have, there's no FU money. That's right.

It's only FU poverty, the richer you get, the more vested you are in the current system, the more you have to lose. And so I did think you were very unusual in that you made all this money young and you're like, yeah, I'm kind of happy to, first of all, stop making money for a while. You didn't seem addicted to it. No. They'll get addicted to it. No. You know what I mean? I actually spent it. Yeah. It's something that's on the stuff. Right. You blew a lot of it.

Yeah. And then you did, why were you different from like everyone else you went to Yale Law School with? Oh, JD. Other classmates, you know, here's just the two of us. I can tell you, there's some, I won't even, I won't even tell you about the email chains where they still have the class email list. There's a lot of funny stuff that goes on. They've lost their minds over myself and Katie. Oh, yeah. Yeah. It's actually kind of hilarious. You guys were in these same class?

Yeah. We're in the same class. Me and you were sure JD were all classmates and my wife was at med school at the same time. So we were all, we were all friendly. Where was she at med school? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Which is really funny. You all misused your credentials again. Exactly. Exactly. The bestowed them. So I have to ask you to pause.

So you're on the Yale Law School, which for those who don't follow us the most prestigious law school in the United States, I think it's fair to say, but also probably the most insane in some ways. Yeah. I think all of this things are fair. Yeah. So what's the, what's the email chain? So each class just has their own, has their own like kind of like listserv where they, where they'll stay in touch. And after the Springfield stuff, right? So people were going, people were going totally nuts.

And eating, eating the cats. Yeah. Or eating the pets, right? So they were going totally nuts. And then there was this like long thread of what charity people were going to give to in Springfield. Town they otherwise would never visit, never have heard of, never have given second care to to say, okay, here's what we're actually going to do to help this community. And they started to have everyone piling it. Well, I'm going to make my donation. And I'm going to make my donation here.

And it was, it was so nosy, but it was actually a very keen effort to get the New York times to report on it. So the New York Times did report on that. Of course, the New York Times has their own agenda in wanting to report on this because they want to give money to, to, to, to particular causes in Springfield to virtue signal the fact that we're not on the JD Vance Donald Trump side of this.

And as Yale lost as fellow Yale law school alums who came from that same class, we're going to actually make a concerted donation to send a different signal that we're on the side. But you and JD are actually from Ohio. Yeah, actually, yeah, actually, actually spent a lot of my youth in Springfield. I actually know, I actually know a lot about this. I'm tempted to pull up the email that I, that I sent. So I sent an email to the group. I never, I'm commented on this list.

It's served in like five years, like I've known, or 10 years probably. I haven't posted a single thing, but I kind of entertained myself watching this stuff from time to time. So I actually also went to Springfield myself. Actually, so, so this is a, well, it's rewind back. So when all this was playing out, I said, I kind of want to go to Springfield and check this out. I have a lot of family that's lived there in the past. I have some family there who lives there now.

I spent a lot of my youth there. There's this place. There's a, there's a sub place that I used to go to, like, you know, when I used to play tennis at Whitenburg every summer, which is the University in Springfield. So I've spent a lot of time there growing up. So I said, I live like 50 minutes from there right now in Columbus. A group in Cincinnati, I live in Columbus. Springfield's literally on the way right in between. Like, let me just go check it out.

So I just was having white dinner with my wife and a couple of friends in Columbus. And I just put out a tweet. And I said, I'm going to Springfield. I want to see what's happening. See it for myself. And no plan for like an event or anything like that. But some guy then replies and says, well, I have an event space. It can hold 375 people. We show up in Springfield. This is what, like, a month or two ago when all of this played out. And, you know, it's just 375 people.

It could hold 2,000 people show up. But they couldn't hold 2,000. So the rest were lined up outside. And people just wanted to be heard. Did I see evidence of cats and dogs being eaten? I didn't see evidence of that. What I did see evidence of was a woman being chased out of a store with a machete. Her daughter by nearly a little immigrant who was in this country, which didn't get reported on by the news at all.

But was a function of a woman who actually came and told that story of her daughter who was only being chased with a machete out of a grocery store called the police and the police didn't show up for hours and they didn't follow up with an investigation either. So that people deserve to hear police did nothing. That's what she said. And I have every reason to believe her. So anyway, against that backdrop, I also wanted to do something positive for the community.

Having shown up in Springfield is obviously a strain on local resources. I wanted to make a donation. And as you said, I've lived the American dream. I wanted to make a $100,000 donation. And so to help for my family, that's an easy thing we were able to do to help a local community. Where's the strain? So if I were the local strain points are access to local primary care.

And we tried to make a donation in conjunction with my trip, but the organization did not want to accept the donation that our family was about to give. So they've talked about Springfield. We need help, we need all the people who can to help support the community. And yet here is somebody who is living on Ohio, has lived the American dream.

I want to actually use a small portion of what this country's given us to help a community that's important to me in the area of healthcare where there were a lot of strain resources in part because of the large numbers of people who have been moved to that community. And I didn't even have the ability to help the community that way. Why? They didn't provide a great explanation. They turned down a hundred grand donations. Yeah. Well, who would do that?

I mean, an administrator, I suppose, but because of the politics, I can only, I can only assume. Right? I would say, I heavily doubt that if I were, you know, shared brown or something like that, that they would have turned down a similar donation in a time of need. So anyway, I talked about all this when I visited Springfield, but afterwards, I just, I told people that I was going to help support Springfield. So I decided to, I wanted to follow through on that.

So we found a couple of other charitable causes to donate to, you know, in totaling $100,000 to help Springfield. And one of them was a crisis pregnancy center. I'm pro life. And we wanted to, at least to help people get to, you know, strains on the system. It's a different area of healthcare where we thought there were strains on the system. I actually surveyed a lot of people in Ohio and in Springfield, privately, who I knew, where could I have an impact?

And they gave us, they gave us this as a resource. So anyway, to bring this back to the original story, we have this law school listserv where they've made a donation to, I think it was like, it was a left leaning group that had a lot of, a lot of woke stuff on their front page. I can't tell you which exactly one it was. The DEI all plastered all over where it needs to be. And they made the donation. They got a bunch of people to sign on it.

Every time somebody donated, they would, they would reply all and say, I have also donated. And there was a certain pride in sanctumony in that. They got the New York Times to report on it. They got MSNBC to pick it up. So there's a lot of media around. That's crazy. Comparatively not quite as much money being raised even, but that's, that's, that's beside the point.

And so I'm on this list having to sort of see my, you know, inbox repeatedly flooded with every other time somebody made a donation. So I just want to note, because maybe there's people who have a different point of view from supporting exactly the cause they put up.

So I included a link saying, you know, if, if there's one to support Springfield here, some other alternative causes that you might wish to support my family and I were pleased to support the community, they lost it with respect to a crisis pregnancy. They didn't actually, they didn't like it very much. What did they say?

You know, I think they, they, they, they called it a, they, they saw it as a, they saw it as a insult, actually, they felt personally insulted that I was going to exploit their, they were feeling about Springfield and the attention they wanted to draw by supporting it by offering a very different kind of cost. But a beautiful thing happened because this goes to the same trend you and I are talking about.

There were actually a lot of my classmates who I know, lean left of center, who then came out and were just like, well, have you ever considered the fact that we might also have classmates who have a different point of view on these questions? And you may not just want to be donating to one particular side of this cause. And there was just a debate amongst them. So I didn't, I didn't really get further involved in this. I rarely post on that list.

It was just a two liner that I had to share to offer an alternative to you and JD personally on the list. You know, I don't, I don't read most of the emails. I think, I think there have been a lot of unfriendly things said. Yes. So you've got to wonder about that whole world. Yeah. I mean, so Trump would depend JD went to Yale. So you still have two guys that I've elic degrees in the top.

By the way, I don't think the, I don't think there's any, far from being shame in that, like I'm very, I had a great experience at Harvard and Yale and we learned a lot of things. Yeah. I think independently I got a better education because of a lot of these people leaning left. Do you get questioned more than the average person? I bet that's right. Yeah. But there's also over the past several years, there's been a lot of evidence that those schools, you know, aren't good for a lot of the kids.

They're not the same places they were. They were kids. Yeah. Go there. I mean, you're obvious. You've got a strong personality. You know what you think. You're not dependent on other people's approval. Obviously, you don't seem to care that much. But you know, most people, young people really do care what the herd thinks. And for those kids, like a lot of them get destroyed and become completely irrational and into the witchcraft of transgenderism or whatever.

They become like not really functioning people. And you just wonder like how long does the prestige attach to those institutions, particularly in say China, which keeps them afloat? Yeah, that's, maybe not Yale, but like below Yale, a lot of these schools are dependent on, absolutely. Rich Chinese. Yeah. So like when does that end? When do we stop genuine foot before these places?

Either they're going to massively change what they are and what they represent or they're going to go the way the dustbin of history. They are, right? They kind of are. So the thing is, there's a difference between even these places now versus 20 years ago. It's just like not the same place in the same institution. Harvard Yale always lean left, always have had a very, you know, certainly self, self-important view of themselves. That's always been the case. Well, they were institutions.

Certainly when I was there, I could tell you from experience where alternative ideas were tolerated. There was good debate. I actually learned a lot from being pushed by classmates who had different points of view than mine. I evolved in some of my views. It's a beautiful thing. That's what's supposed to happen through a supposedly liberal arts education. That is not the institution of Harvard or Yale or countless others like them that exist today.

There's something dramatic has changed as they have lost their north star is no longer, at least dated as of let's just say six months to a year ago, maybe a lot's going to change. We're no longer committed to the pursuit of knowledge and we're committed to the pursuit of affirmative social goals like Harvard's top goal. It seems is to drive social change in the world rather than actually educate their students.

Yale has completely abandoned the idea of free speech that the expression of certain ideas is itself a constant and active violence in a way that they no longer would tolerate on their campus. I think all of that's going to have to change because otherwise you're going to actually produce a bunch of let's just say, if feet graduates, they're not going to go on to actually accomplish very much, which gives the next generation very little incentive to want to go through those institutes.

That's exactly the first place. So what's going to happen? Either they're going to become increasingly irrelevant and go through this process of elegant decay that they're in right now. Either they evolve or die. Those are the two choices I would just like all of us. Yeah. So Christmas is coming and winter is coming and that's the perfect combination for cozy earth. Cozy earth is a company that makes exactly what it sounds like, products that are close to the earth and that are quite cozy.

And you should consider them this Christmas. They have the best sheets available. They're made out of bamboo, believe it or not. And it's hard to believe how great they are until you try them we have and they are great. They're great fit for everybody in their shopping list. What sets them apart? Well their fabrics are temperature regulating. That means they keep you cool and cozy or warm and cozy depending on the temperature and they have a 10 year warranty.

So if anything goes wrong with your sheets, you get free ones. Go to cozyearth.com slash chucker user promo code Tuckerfrupt 40% off. If they ask tell you tell them the Tucker Carlson show sent you. And here uses those sheets and loves them. Tucker says it best. The credit card companies are ripping Americans off and enough is enough. This is Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. Our legislation the Credit Card Competition Act would help in the grip Visa and Master Card have on us.

Every time you use your credit card, they charge you a hidden fee called a swipe fee and they've been raising it without even telling you. This hurts consumers and every small business owner. In fact, American families are paying $1,100 in hidden swipe fees each year. The fees Visa and Master Card charge Americans are the highest in the world, double candidates and eight times more than Europe's. That's why I take an action but I need your help to help get this passed.

I'm asking you to call your senator today and demand they pass the Credit Card Competition Act. Stay tuned for the Marchance Payments Coalition, not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee, www.murchancepaymentscoelegian.com. Hillsdale College offers many great free online courses, including a recent one on Marxism, Socialism and Communism. Today Marxism goes by different names to make itself seem less dangerous. Things like Critical Race Theory, Gender Theory and Decolonization.

No matter the names, this online course shows it's the same Marxism that works to destroy private property and that will lead to famines, show trials and gulags. Start learning online for free at tuckerforhillsdale.com. That's tuckerf-o-r-hillsdale.com. The US is the biggest consumer of human trafficking while Latina women are the most exploited. Kamala and Biden have been the exploiters in chief by not protecting the border, nor women and children.

Jesus said, let the little children come to me. God is intervened by placing his hand on Donald Trump to protect them from exploitation and God intervened by inspiring Bob Yunanway to say, We're all truly blessed to have a leader like President Trump. Read about this and more in Bob's new bestselling book, Less. Donald J. Trump and the Spiritual War, available now on Amazon. So what are the effects of Trump's win? I think it's a renewal of national self confidence, actually.

I think that we are going to be more sure of ourselves as Americans. I think we already are. I think the idea that people are a lot of people who would have either felt uncomfortable saying this about Donald Trump or didn't even think they did, but now realize that they actually value what he represents. Have a greater sense of conviction in themselves. Have a greater sense of conviction in America. I think that's probably the most important thing.

I mean, gold dropped to 100 bucks an ounce in like an hour. Yeah, it's interesting how that works. And this gold, of course, is a bet against the US dollar. And the stock market went exactly in the opposite direction. And so markets reflect confidence.

And I think the revival of our self confidence is the most important thing, actually, because everything else, we could talk about the issues that fixing the border, restoring law and order, enforcing the law, ending rampant crime in the country, growing the economy. All of those things require a certain level of self confidence in America. Requires a certain sense of spine in who we are to be able to say, okay, an economy grows when people are willing to take risks.

You're not willing to take risks to create a new business or to grow, you know, or to invest in a new venture, unless you have actual confidence in yourself and your ability to do that. Same thing with respect to the rule of law. You have to believe in the validity of American rule of law to actually stand by it even when it's actually harder and popular to do so. Same thing to say that our own border actually means something.

You have to have confidence in a nation to believe that that nation is worth protecting. If you actually don't believe in what's inside, then there's no real reason you have to protect it physically either. So I think the revival of our national self confidence is the most important thing Donald Trump has delivered. And I think is going to deliver for the country. And if we get that back, the rest of it's actually pretty easy. It sort of falls into place more or less automatically, I would say.

But along the way, they're all, I mean, there are all kinds of obstacles. And the first obstacle is finding the right people to staff the government. Yes, yes, which was it. And Trump has said this himself, including to me, like that, before he got elected in public, I didn't have anyone to run the government. And there were a lot of bad people wound up in positions of real authority. Will it be different this time? I think it will, actually.

I think it will because, first of all, all human beings, Donald Trump included has learned a lot from that first term. I think that if you have somebody who had never run for office before, and I'm particularly sympathetic to this, I ran for president without knowing what the heck I was getting into. And it was very much a fire first, aim later strategy for me over the last year when I ran. And so I can deeply empathize with Donald Trump's first run for president. But now he did.

He run for the first time. He actually won the first time as well. And to be able to get in there, as you said, I wasn't there, but it sounds like without even that much of an expectation of winning, I think the system was able to strike back before he and his team were able to get their arms around the system. And even still accomplished a lot.

I mean, I think that first term was, you know, I said this when we spoke the other day, but it was like the most successful president of the 21st century, which is setting very low bar because the other presidents in the 21st century have been awful. George Bush, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, are the others? And Donald Trump was on a big issue the best of that batch. But I think the idea that there's only, there's certainly things you can only learn by doing it.

I mean, even running for president, there's only certain things I could have learned about that process by doing it. Now let alone leading the country. I think there's only certain things Donald Trump could have learned by actually being in that position.

And so this time around, I think he is laser focused on making sure that the people he puts into those positions actually share broadly his vision for the country, broadly share and allegiance, people make like this some kind of bad thing, but allegiance to him personally. I'm sorry, if you're running a company, you can't run that company as a CEO of the people who work for you actively dislike you or wish to undermine you personally. Well, sure.

Even if they believe in the company's product, it doesn't work if they actually like actively hate the CEO. So I don't know why the liberal press actually likes to make a big deal out of the fact that Donald Trump wants people who will also share a personal allegiance to him and are mission aligned. I think both of those things are required for a functioning organization.

Because they were a Terrian because under Trump, the FBI was always showing up at people's houses and stealing their cell phones and carting them off to, oh, wait, no. These people are totalitarian. Yeah, it's actually, I know a lot of people personally. I'm friends with people who've been the target of FBI raids, including today, Alfie Oaks, who's a wonderful man. We would have visited his restaurant and to take a job, yep, and South Florida Naples. Good man. I don't know. I don't know.

I don't know. I think about the Alex Kirsten store in the United States. He's a very kind human being who was immensely, he just took such great care of our family in the short time we spent with him. Yeah. Wonderful person. I was outspoken conservative and outspoken Trump voter, which is your right to do in this country. Of course, he was a COVID dissident. And he was rated by the FBI today. Now I just texted him.

I don't know what the charges are, the pretext is for rating his house, but I'm willing to stake my credibility on since I know him so well. You know, don't think Alfie Oaks is doing anything that warranted an FBI raid and I doubt he would have been rated to not been an outspoken Trump voter. So, anyway, these people are scary. They're going to be thrown out of power. What does Trump do with the mandate that he has? I hope as much as possible as quickly as possible.

I think the same, I think the lesson from last time around is if you don't move fast, the beast ultimately will swallow any individual whole. Of course. And so I think he's ready to go in with real determination this time around to move quickly, move fast. I think we need to winds behind our back early on. You know, one of the things that I think we learned from last time around is a lot of this is just early momentum, right? You've, let's say we have three, all three branches.

Let's say we've got judicial branch. We have a great judicial branch right now at the top of the Supreme Court, the best we've had, certainly in our lifetime. But you combine that with the strong electoral mandate for the presidency, a strong decisive majority in the Senate. Hopefully get a good Senate majority leader picked. And then, and I think Rick Scott would be great for that. But that's a, it's a lot of... It can't be John Cornyn. Yeah, I think. John Cornyn is an aggressive liberal.

And if Donald Trump wins the popular vote in John Cornyn of Texas who is way more liberal than a lot of Democrats, I know, winds up Senate majority leader. I mean, that's just, it's crazy. That's just, assume a few more of those correct pieces falling to place and then, and then even a majority, at least an impeachment-proof house. I think that we got to go big. We got to go fast. Two major issues right out the gate. One is already the one that Donald Trump's been talking about the entire time.

You know, he's pumped up about it and he is not going to mess around with this is to fix the illegal immigration crisis and actually seal on national borders. And he is laser focused on that. He has made no secrets about that. That's his top campaign message. He's going to keep that promise. And I think he's going to keep it fast starting on day one. That's number one. And there's a lot to say on that, but it's hard to say what hasn't already been said about what needs to be done. Right.

It's just about getting in there and doing it. So that's mass deportation. Number one is millions of illegals out of this country and sealing the border along with it. But I'm actually far more intrigued and interested for the long run in what I think of as the second mass deportation that we require, which is the mass deportation of millions of unelected federal bureaucrats out of the DC bureaucracy. And I do think that is what's going to save this country. You can't do that.

I think you actually can. You can't fire. We can all be fired. I've been fired many times. I'm sure you just lost a presidential race. Like we've all the only group that cannot fail that has actual tenure is not Harvard professors. Not even. It's not even. It's federal bureaucrats. New acts just got, you know, tenure is no protection at all compared to the protection of federal employment.

Yeah. So the one difference is, first of all, we have a president who I think has the spine to actually step up and do it. But the second thing is we actually have a, not to get to, you know, in the weeds here, but we actually have a legal landscape with the current Supreme Court that allows us to do what couldn't have been done in the last half century. They have a moral right to work from home, yeah, 10 hours a week, an hour expense at a far higher wage than the average America.

Oh, absolutely. So the funny thing is, they have a moral right. You can't complain about it. You actually brought up a really interesting dimension of this. If you literally just mandated that they have to actually show up to work Monday through Friday, I know radical idea. They don't, they don't go to work. Actually, a good number of them would quit that way, right? Right. That's step alone. So you don't even have to talk about, you want to mass firing, mass exodus?

Just tell them they have to come back five days a week from 8 p.m. to 6 p.m. Like many Americans, most Americans who work hard to earn a living in this country, just show up physically to work. You'd actually have about a 25% thing out of the federal bureaucracy right there. So that's an easy first step. Next step is, so the Supreme Court would, they've laid out right now is they've basically said in so many words that most federal regulations are unconstitutional, close to in so many words.

That's what they've said. If Congress didn't pass it, right? The basic principle here is the people we elect to run the government should run the government. That's not the case today. The people who write most of the rules were never elected to their position. And the Congress makes the law. That's what the Constitution says. That's what the Constitution says, but that's not exactly how it works today. And the Supreme Court, thankfully, has had a major problem with that.

So it was his case West Virginia University PA two years ago. There was this Loper-Bright case that came down this year that overturned this horrific doctrine called Chevron Deference, which said that the courts have to defer to the agency's judgments on what the law actually says. The Supreme Court's torn all of that to shreds.

And basically what they've said is, if it's a major question, if it's something that affects people's lives economically or relates to a major political issue, it cannot be written into existence by somebody who was not elected to office or who can't be voted out of office, it has to be done by the people who were elected to write the laws. So who could be voted out if they write bad laws? That's a beautiful thing. And I think that those were seismic democracy. That's the monarchy.

That's the monarchy. That's the monarchy. That's actually the essence of democracy. That's the essence of self-governance. So we've had those cases come down under this Biden-Harris tenure. But actually if you have somebody who takes over in the presidency now, if we're going to go on January 20th, who takes a posture of executive humility, and this is the key part, right?

Because people will say, oh, Donald Trump's going to go, if he's going to go shut down these agencies, that's executive fiat. No, no, no, no, you got it mixed up. The executive fiat's what's been happening for the last century, really in this country. But over the last four years included, unelected bureaucrats by fiat legislating what otherwise should have gone through we, the people in our elected representatives.

So the Supreme Court's already said, told the executive branch, and you can't do that actually. A lot of that was illegal and unconstitutional. All we need right now is an executive branch that says, hey, the Supreme Court, you've told us a lot of what we're doing is illegal. It violates the constitution. So we're not going to do that anymore.

And that requires us to take any regulation, any federal regulation that fails these standards that the Supreme Court has given us in West Virginia, or CPA, and Loper Brite. And there's another case called Jarkis, versus SEC. That one relates to slightly different issues. But the Supreme Court standards, all of these regulations that fail that test were just going to resend them. They're not employed.

And we don't have to resend them because we already know they're actually null-invoied and illegitimate anyway. But we will put the public on notice to say these tens of thousands of regulations that have been written by federal bureaucrats. They're null-invoied because they were never written by the people who we elected. Now if you have 50% fewer regulations, that creates kind of an industrial logic to say that, okay, well, then we don't need 50% of the people around anymore either.

And the way these rules have worked in the past is they have this, you know, this well, right? The civil service rules, the civil protection rules that say you can't fire these federal bureaucrats. That's been the historical, you know, accepted dogma. See, if you read the law carefully, it doesn't work quite that way. That applies to individual firings, right?

To say if I fire you, you have a special protection to say that I either politically discriminated against you or discriminated for some other reason, or if you fire a bunch of people with discretionary firings, if there's a disparate racial impact or a gender impact or whatever, you could be sued on a million grounds. But if it is part of a mass firing, what you call a reduction in force, it was just like a mass firing, those actually fall outside the civil service rules as they exist.

So if you go in that order to say that, okay, the Supreme Court's already told us that all of these regulations, not all of them, but an overwhelming majority of them are invalid. You go straight down that list and say we have 50%, 70%, 80% fewer regulations.

Then you look at the four million people, civil servants or whatever and say that, okay, if we have 80% fewer regulations, then we need 80% fewer people to enforce them that simply make sense, then you have the industrial logic for right there under current law, mass downsizing, just the scale of the federal government. And part of the problem is these things are deeply related.

When you have a bunch of people who show up to work, who should have never had that job in the first place, they start finding things to do, actually. And that's what gave us that regulatory morass in the first place, like the Federal Reserve. I mean, if you just fired, yeah, about 22,000 employees in the Federal Reserve, if you fired 90% of them, there would still be 2,000 left, which is arguably on the high side.

If you have a Federal Reserve whose sole focus is restoring the stability of the US dollar, which I do think should be the sole mandate and sole purpose of the US Fed. Same thing with respect to you go straight down the list. What else do SEC? What do 22,000 employees do with the Fed? Oh, they do a lot of calculations. They do a lot of conjecture and it feeds their hubris a little bit.

So markets, and I worked at the hedge fund, the first job I had for seven years at a college and understand a way in which people will huddle around, divining what the exact meaning is of a comma at the end of Federal Reserve minutes. Does that mean that they think the economy's overheating so much that they have to raise interest rates? That feeds a kind of hubris of the bureaucrat to make them think that there's some kind of genius and some kind of actual savant that merits this attention.

But the reason the market actors pay attention to what these Federal Reserve people say is not because they have some sort of expert knowledge that's actually meaningful. They're actually looking to see effectively how they're going to screw it up in the process. And so academics took over the Federal Reserve in the late 1990s. But the Fed only has one big lever, right? Well, they have a few levers actually. They're able to pull.

Yeah. One big lever broadly means how much money you feed in or suck out of the system. Yeah. Yeah. That's true. They've used that in ways that have been, I think, badly destructive to the country. Yeah. Because here's like an example of how. So when the academics took over the Fed in the late 1990s, like one of the things that happened, and this was a kind of managerial class in this agency. And that's a three-letter agency in some form, the FED, right?

Well, they said was, okay, if wages are going up, this is a long story if you want to get it to us, but we can give you a short version. If wages are going up, that is a leading indicator of inflation. The wage growth was a bad thing. So the way you fight wage growth is by tightening monetary policy into wages going up. Here's a problem with that. Anybody who's run a business knows this, okay? Wages are the generally the last thing to go up in the business cycle.

If things are going really well in the business cycle, the last thing most employers want to say, you know, I'm not saying it's the right decision or the wrong decision, but most employers, the last thing they want to have go up is the wages. So wages tend to be actually not a leading indicator of the business cycle. Wages growth tends to be a trailing indicator of the business cycle.

But you have the academic mindset of the Federal Reserve that said, that's one thing we can measure that we can observe and feel smart about. So wage growth, we're going to treat that as a leading indicator of inflation even when it's a trailing indicator. Well, what does that mean? They tighten monetary policy precisely into a natural downturn of the business cycle, which gives you the boom bust and then what comes after a bust is, is of course the bailout.

So you get these boom bust bailout cycles. That's exactly what happened. You could say in 2000, you could say in 2008, you could see some version of it, you know, even in 2023, although that was a little bit more subtle. And so anyway, that's a whole rabbit hole about the Fed. But it's an example of when you have 23,000 people show up to work who should have never had the job in the first place, they start finding things to do.

And when you find things to do that ends up being destructive rather than helpful, which means the root causes, you got to get rid of the presence of the people who populate that bureaucracy. But in order to do that, you need this industrial logic. And that industrial logic, in my opinion, is what the Supreme Court has already given us, which is this mandate to say the executive branch, the fake executive branch, the administrative state has written all these rules by Fiat.

Most of them are illegal, like they're actually unlawful, they're illegitimate. And so if you have an executive branch that says, okay, we're going to recognize that most of these regulations are illegitimate. There's your blueprint for then shaving down the size of the federal bureaucracy, which is then the permanent solution to stop that bureaucracy from perpetuating this kind of illegal rampant action. I think that's the stuff of how you actually save a country. Boring is that might sound.

It's not boring. And I think I've never heard in all the, you know, my whole life in Washington, anybody suggests that this is a process that could really be stalled or reversed, the process being the growth of the federal government, which is just inexorable, because the purpose of the institution is to protect, protect itself and expand. That's the way. Take a law of physics, supply, sick, every institution exists to protect itself for its own benefit. That's its purpose.

And it's demonstrable in its behavior. So, but it's so obvious, it's so overwhelming. It's the largest institution in human history. I've never heard anybody say, you know, we have a shot of like, lopping off 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, like, 10%. Yeah. That, I mean, that would change everything from our foreign policy to our economy, to our culture. You really think that's, that could happen? Yeah. I think it could happen. I think it will.

I had not going to paint some sort of exclusively, or one of the trade-offs you're going to have a crash in the economy of Arlington, Virginia, which is well deserved. And maybe a boom of the economy elsewhere. And long overdue. Yeah. You know, why shouldn't Arlington and McLean and Loudon County share the pain of Gary Indiana? I don't understand a Springfield Ohio. I don't actually, actually going to take the bright side of this. What? I think of the apocalypse side.

I'm in the golden age mood, right? Yeah, I'm in the old age. Sorry, sorry. But you could feel the resentment. It's two sides of the same coin though. They go right together, send these people to Gary and Dana, or to Springfield. We don't need external, external individuals to the nation to actually fill those open positions. We have three million of them sitting in the Greater Washington DC area. Who you know? They could say, well, are those people really going to do those jobs?

Maybe they should. Actually, they could be far more productive than the destruction that they're doing to the country right now. It is a fact that we have more open jobs than we have people in the country. That's often one of the back door arguments made for mass illegal immigration in this country. But actually, you need, I think for rule of law reasons, you need deportation of people who are in this country illegally.

But if you get three million people out of the federal bureaucracy in Washington, DC, they are Americans. And those are available candidates to actually provide a little shot in the arm to the labor market. Why should the agencies be moved to Baltimore and Gary? To the extent they exist. I think they should absolutely be moved. Absolutely. I think many of those agencies should not exist. Many of them that do continue to exist absolutely should be moved to other parts of the country.

So I don't think the social general office should sit in Washington, DC. I don't think I don't think you should have much of HHS more broadly. I don't think that the Department of Agriculture should sit in Washington, DC. I think there are countless agencies, the Department of Education. I think you're wrongfully insulated in Washington, DC. Now certain of those agencies like the Department of Education should not actually exist.

So I wouldn't want to start this process of just saying, okay, let's move them out of Washington, DC. Some sort of polite, gentle way of avoiding inside stepping the thing that we actually need to do, which is bring a jackhammer and a chainsaw to the whole thing. But even those that do continue to exist, you would actually have a lot more accountability to the people.

And probably even some kind of stimulus, if you will, in parts of the country that wouldn't mind a little bit of that growth, getting out of DC and come into their own backyard. These two things go together though, because if you actually did take one of those agencies and say, hey, you have to show up to work five days a week and actually you have to go to Topeka Kansas, Surcins and Adiwio instead. You'd actually have a good number of the people quit anyway, which avoids the severance costs.

So I kind of like that method as you can kind of get two in one right there is thinning it down and moving it out. But yeah, move the agencies out. You should fire about 75% of the federal employee head count. If not, you know, immediately on day one, you could go, you could ease into that pretty quickly. Agencies that are redundant can be reorganized that should exist. Department of Education is a good example. Shut it down, send the money back.

Workforce training can move to the Department of Labor and loan collections can move to Treasury. There's just a mass opportunity for a mega reorganization and thereby downsizing of this bureaucracy. It's a one way ratchet because it's not like if another president comes back, they can write that back into existence by fiat. They'd actually have to go through Congress to do it.

And so I think this is a, to call it once in a generation, under states it might be closer to once in a century or once in a nation's lifetime opportunity to drastically reorganize and reshape and drive structural change in the federal government. And I'm pretty pumped up about that actually. Would you be involved in this effort? I'd like to be. Yeah, absolutely. I've given it a lot of thought. It was the centerpiece of my presidential campaign. I spent a year and a half of my life.

This is, it was probably the most, I mean, I, I took a lot of positions on a lot of things, but this is probably the single most useful and certainly personally important to me part of the policy aspect of my campaign last year. And yeah, I have been involved, let's just say in recent months, it's, this is laying out what the blueprint should look like. This is the draining the swamp part of the operation that we were promised but never got.

And I knew you've talked to the president elect about this and many other topics. You think he's on board for something this far reaching? He understands this is the root cause of the cancer. He under, I mean, he's, he said drain the swamp for a reason. You could talk about all the reasons why that was hard to do the first time around. One of the reasons is we didn't even have that legal landscape from the current Supreme Court.

And he made some good Supreme Court appointments that allowed us to have this landscape. So now I think he is dialed in, understands that incrementally tinkering around the edges of these agencies, it doesn't work. There's a temptation to say if you just fire the person on top, that's somehow that's going to fix the problem. No, you know, James Coney, 2.0 or whatever to fill the same seat.

But I think if you're willing to actually strike the Leviathan at its core, I think that that's actually what it's going to take to save a country. And I do think he gets that in a deep way. Turns out that what you do online is not private, not even close. Data brokers are tracking and creating a profile of everything you do. That would include your spending habits, your values, your beliefs. Here in the United States, for some reason, they're allowed to sell all of that information.

And that means the big corporations buy and sell everything about you and then give it information to others who use it against you and to control you. How do you push back? How do you hold on to your privacy, which means your freedom? Well, we use ExpressVPN. With ExpressVPN, 100% of your online activity is rerouted through secure and encrypted servers. And that means it's impossible for your internet service provider to know what

you're doing or for outside parties or governments to sell your data. ExpressVPN hides your IP address. Data brokers use that IP address to build a profile on you and then sell it to whoever they want. But without it and without all of your online activity, data brokers can't do that. They can't add it to your profile. You are free to do what you want online without prying eyes spying on you. ExpressVPN is pretty complex technically, but it's very easy

to use. It works on everything you own. Your phones, tablets, smart TVs, computers, you can use it on eight devices at once so you can share the privacy that you've received with your entire family. Right now you're going to get an extra three months free when you use this special link. Go to ExpressVPN.com slash Tucker, an extra three free months of ExpressVPN. This Express VPN dot com slash Tucker. The price of ground beef has doubled in recent years and the average quality has gone

down with beef imports hitting over four billion pounds just last year. Good Ranchers dot com is your solution. Stop paying more for less. Get the most out of every meal with 100 percent American meat delivered to your door with amazing steaks, chicken, pork and wild caught seafood sourced exclusively from local US farms. You can enjoy America's best without the inflated price tag at good ranchers dot com save $25 on any box right now with code

Tucker. Plus during good ranchers presidential sale you get to pick a free cut of meat for the next four years. That's free salmon, bacon, chicken breasts or ground beef in every box until 2028. Support American farms, ranches and veterans with every purchase. $25 off and free meat for the next four years with code Tucker at good ranchers dot com American meat delivered. Federal employees are the core audience of CNN and MSNBC. So I don't think you're going

to be young. Of course they are. Who's watching that crap? What happens? I mean, right. That's a good guy. I mean, I'm not obviously, but apparently people are they're watching the view. What happens to watching Jimmy Kimmel or whatever his name is? What happens to all those people? I mean, if they reach the point of like being so totally discredited

that they can't continue. So here's here's sort of my view. When I talk about the bureaucracy as something we need to bring a chain saw to I actually draw a distinction between the bureaucracies, its own self-propeaching organism and the individual three million people who populate it. So there are certainly some people who are in positions of authority who are just individually bad people. Absolutely. That need to be purged from the federal government

and get out and back into normal life. And maybe they can be rehabilitated, but they're going to be that's not going to be the job of the new government. That's going to be something that their own spiritual advisors have to help them through. That's that's that's

a separate category. But I think that's a relatively small minority of the three plus million federal civil servants who I do think are probably dead weight worse than dead weight because they're actually inadvertently even doing things that are net harmful to the country.

I think it's the machine itself that I think is a big part of the problem. A lot of these people are people who individually believe that they're carrying out some sort of some sort of good and it comes from this sort of organizational conceit, which is basically skeptical of self governance, right? I mean, it's as old as it's as old as human beings are as the idea that you can govern yourself was mostly a radical idea that most people thought was laughable

and crazy. I mean, that's what we thought the American revolution over the exact topic that you and I are talking about here because the basic view is that if you leave it to we the people, you'll burn yourself out of existence through global warming or climate change or you'll you'll harm yourself before you even know it through racial equity,

you know, failures or climate change failures. That's the equivalent of what the old European world view was was that the idea that we the people could be trusted to govern ourselves and express our own opinions. That was crazy. That's why we fought an American revolution. Well, it turns out that that ugly monster is just rearing its head again saying that no, no, you actually can't be trusted to self govern. So we'll tell you that you are to give

you the satisfaction of believing that you live in a republic. See, that was actually they they could think of rewrite the American revolution through revisionist lens and say, okay, you can't tell people they live in a monarchy. But if you can at least keep the parts of a monarchy that are required for society to continue to exist, but full people into thinking they live in a democracy or self governing republic, that's almost good enough.

And that comes with some inconveniences because sometimes it will actually even behave a little bit like a democracy at times. But in the core questions, at least if it was unelected people who actually made those decisions, that machine is actually what protects humanity from itself. And so the people who occupy those positions are individually people who believe that they are doing the right thing, not even for themselves or that they're trying

to harm their fellow citizens. They're doing the right thing for their fellow citizens. I'm thinking about the average civil servant working at the FTA or the SEC or whatever. They believe that if it weren't for them, the silent, you know, the Bruce Wayne figure that they are, right? The hero that got them deserves. That's how they think about themselves. And individually, I guess you could say that motivation as much as there's a conceit embedded

in that, like they're not individually irredeemable people. I just think that they have become part of a machine that is irredeemable. And so I know that maybe they'll continue watching me come on. That's like a separate issue, right? We have cultural issues in the country.

If we view the bureaucracy as its own target, separate apart from the individuals who comprise it, I think that's going to a allow us to be more successful and b allow us to, I think, sell it to the rest of the country and not in a fake sale, but like a true sale to say that we don't hold this against the individuals who are working here who have put in 20 years of work to the federal government. But we owe it to the rest of the people of this country

that the job of the federal government is not to employ these people. So where does the rubber hit the road on that? Here's one where you could call me soft for this, but actually think this would be advisable. Actually, I think this would drastically increase the probability of success of this happening. But I also think that it doesn't really dilute what we're doing. It doesn't have to do our purpose. I would actually favor rather generous severance arrangements

with those individuals, right? Like we could debate whether that's a year or a half, a year and a half would be extremely generous. You could say that well, then you're eating into some of your cost savings, not really in the long run. You're still saving a lot of money. For sure. But the whole exercise wasn't really about saving their headcount costs anyway. The biggest cost of employing the people in this machine is the action of the machine

itself. So if you've debilitated that for a year and a half worth of severance, well, I mean, what's that? It's like a year and a half's worth of not having done this in the first place. Pay that as down payment to actually make that happen. That by normal employment

standards is actually really generous. Like if you're working at a company and you're not doing a great job and someone fires you or even if you are doing a great job and you're part of a division that's no longer part of that company, you're generally not going to get a year and a half's worth unless you're the CEO. You're not going to get a year and a half's worth of pay. It just doesn't work that way. You might get two weeks. You might

get two months at most. So to treat these federal employees far more generously than they would have been in a private sector circumstance. There's probably people watching this who would think I'd be in soft for saying that. No, I think what actually, I think that's the right thing to do because it will allow us to do this in a way that separates this as a personal vendetta against those individuals who themselves have their families and their kids and whatever

to say that we're solving more of a structural problem. And so that's how I kind of separate a Tucker is, especially economically on the severance piece of this. Like I want to go in, I want to go hard, I want to go aggressive, but I want to make this less about going after the individuals or, you know, they're still free to watch the view if they want. You know what? They can have a year or a year and a half's worth of the role salary because,

I mean, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Like it just doesn't matter right now. Actually, I love that. Yeah. And they'll sue and they'll take it to the Supreme Court. This also why this has to be done now. Not only because it's the window of the electoral mandate we have, I think the current Supreme Court is on our side in a way that it never

has been since the advent of the administrative state, which is around 1920. Like in the last century, we haven't had a, we have not had a Supreme Court that has been as aligned with the vision that I'm describing to you as we have now. And fast forwarded in other 20 years, we probably won't really. I mean, realistically in the next 20 years, there's going to be somebody

who you and I don't agree with who's probably going to be elected president. And there's going to be Supreme Court justices who either die or get swapped out in that time frame. So this is a, again, back to a once in a century, maybe once in a national history opportunity, to really drive deep structural change in the federal government. Improvement. So here's how I would stop it if I were on the other side and opposed to

this. Yeah. I would have a war. I mean, we have, well, sure, we have the, I mean, the federal government is at its current size because of war. The main physical effect of the Second World War in the United States was the construction of the world's largest office building, the Pentagon. We have DHS because of a war. No, it is. It came in existence. Of course, in the, it had 9.11. Yeah, so, yeah, war increases the size of government.

It changes attitudes. It changes your society. Always in terrible ways, in my opinion. But certainly it changes it. But it creates an environment where people don't question, because people are afraid. Yeah. And so they feel like they need government. So, um, the ultimate big government is, is the, you know, there are a lot of money spent in the last year, um, on war with the run. Like people want war with the run. That's, that's the word people

want. Donors want, I know for a fact. So, um, if we get a war with the run, then we're not cutting, we're not cutting the government at all. Interesting. I, I think you've got some thought. I mean, you're, you're one of the things that's also true is that massive Leviathan we're talking about. Probably I gave that we went into this esoteric example about the Fed, but one of the best places, and best examples of that is the state department

as you well know, right? That is when you think about the swamp and then elected bureaucracy and the people who set policy were never elected to set that policy. I mean, the state department's probably even a far better example than the US Federal Reserve. There are too many good examples to choose from, but that's, state department is, is disgusting. Yeah, that's probably, high on the list. Yeah. No, it's got some sort of mandate to make

the world gay or something. I don't understand what where it came, I mean, the point of the state department is to conduct diplomacy on behalf of the United States. It's not to change cultures around the world to fit, you know, the morey of Bethesda Maryland. Actually. So well, I think it's, it's behaved like most organizational bureaucracies. It takes on

a life of its own. And so that's it. That's it. Again, another example of an agency, it's just another agency really that needs to be, you know, we've got to take the same attitude to say that if you got a bunch of people showing up to work who shouldn't have had that job, they start finding things to do that are generally damaging. And that could

include even not only in our own soil. Oh my gosh. But abroad as well. Oh, it's, I mean, my dad, the war fair state is upstream of the welfare state in some ways, because it even relates to the, to the immigration crisis. Actually, more so in Europe, though, I think it probably will eventually be directly linked to the immigration crisis here too, where part of Europe's mass invasion, if you will, of illegals entering Europe is actually the consequence

of US disruptions that we created at the war. The war in Syria. Absolutely. Yes. Yes. And Libya. That's exactly right. No, we did that. And so that, that necessitates a welfare state. We're different from Western European countries. But if you view the West more broadly and the rise of the welfare state in the West, the warfare state actually creates the need for that welfare state, which then actually creates the magnet that keeps the

illegal migration path. Well, sure. And the labor, you know, the real labor shortage in this country is in the Pentagon. They can't meet the recruitment goals. And so they're going to start waving in illegal aliens and giving them automatic weapons. Do you think that's, do you think that's, of course, that's happening? Where are this going? Of course. And so then you, then you have, you know, late Rome, where the Germanic tribes are populating your, your history. Yeah. It's terrifying.

But, okay. So let's ask you about the election. Yeah. It's so dark. I can't even think about it. But that's where we're going. Okay. So within hours of the election of Trump being declared the winner in this last election, numbers appeared in the internet with your accurate China. You've seen that showed the vote totals in the last four elections for the Democrats. And in three out of the four, the number of, including this one, the number

hovered between say 59 and 65 million votes. And then you have this weird anomaly in 2020 where it was 81. Huh. So how do you go? That was such a compelling candidate. That doesn't make any sense. And I, I, I, so this candidate, his vice president, she received, she, Kamala Harris received. They tell us Wikipedia tells us received 81 million votes in 2020. And then somehow she received 15 million fewer. What happened to those 15 million? That

just does not make it. I just dare anyone to explain that to me. What is that? I mean, look, I'm, I'm, I'm not a scholar on this stuff, but I will tell you what I would say. It doesn't. Yeah. Yeah. What I would say. So I think a good number of those on the super positive side of this, a lot of those people are the people who were given the permission

structure. Like whether those people and I will put that to one side, but there are a lot of people who actually did vote for Joe Biden, who could not stomach voting for anyone other than Donald Trump this time around. I think it's great. Yeah. But Trump's numbers stayed the same. Yeah. Trump's numbers stayed the same. That's true. For three elections, pretty much the same. Um, and let's just, let's just cut to the chase on this. We won the election.

Here's what we do. Single day voting on election day as a national holiday with paper ballots and government issued ID to match the voter file. And I would also add while we're at it, making glitch the soul language that appears in a ballot. Yes. And you know what? It's a beautiful thing. Puerto Rico does it this way. There's other countries that do it this way. I think that's something that we could actually do. The country that sent a rocket out and caught

it on the way back. Yes. We would be able to actually run elections on a single day with paper ballot. Yeah. And send dominion packing. And the fact, the fact that there is resistance to this, let's just say the policy proposal on offer. Okay. Obviously the countless times Donald Trump's talked about this. Single day voting on election day, make it a national holiday that actually brings people together. Paper ballots, government issued

ID to match the voter file. I don't if that is if that is objectionable, that itself raises doubts about exactly what they could go. So I don't think Kamala Harris want you can check this, but I'm pretty sure Kamala Harris did not win any states with voter ID law. Oh, is that right? Yeah. And she didn't lose any states that don't require voter ID. Huh. So that's really interesting. No, I'm not saying there's a connection there, Vig.

But you're following the science. So I just don't understand. And I again, I've been in 18 hours or whatever of depositions from voting machine companies to disgusting companies. I was not named it either suit, but they hold me in and try to direct my life just for I don't know, I guess disagreeing with them or something. Smartmatic and dominion, disgusting companies. Why do we have electronic voting machines? No one will say this because they're

afraid of getting sued by these companies. What's the just if it's what's what I haven't followed the industrial history of this? When did that come and take when did they start using them and what was the justification? The justification was that they're more efficient and faster, more accurate and faster. And they turned out it takes a lot longer to get our attention. No. So India, I think is the largest country in the world. I think

they we reset the population numbers recently. If it's not the largest, it's one of the largest by popular second largest. Yeah, I think the largest now. Yeah. I think it is the largest. And I largest democracy for sure in the history of the world. And I think they finished counting in one day every time. Is that correct? I think it is pretty fast. A lot of people do it pretty fast. As I said, even even I mean, like you look at a territory

of the United, it's even Puerto Rico. Like runs their elections with such executional excellence compared to the rest of the United States. And they can even keep the power grid going. It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable. And so we what do we say this time round? This had to be by such a decisive margin that a landslide minus some shenanigans is still going to be a decisive victory. And that's what we got. So my view is we can and

I think there's going to be such a temptation to do this is we actually won. Like we're actually in a winning position right now. So like I more or less like could care less for the Kamala Harris or Joe Biden pastor, what I just don't it just doesn't matter. That's the spirit. What I care about is like how are we actually going to fix it in a lasting way like in a way that just lasts for a really long time. I think there would be enough

of an opportunity. I mean, think about the majority word now commanding in the Senate. I think we can do this nationally where you make election day national holiday, put on a single day and at least for federal elections, because states, like just state elections are owned by states, but at least for a federal election, all 50 states have a bit of bare minimum standard of single day voting, paper ballots, government issued ID to match

the voter file period. I think more or less we've solved the problem of public confidence and elections for the long run. I think you're solving it. You saw it right there. Against that. Then I'd like to offer. I'd like to I'd love to hear the best possible argument offered against that. I haven't really heard one. Black people don't have IDs in this

country. Yeah. I think that that's a racist supposition actually. So you know, and then they will elect racism for somebody who actually thinks anything different than the actual most racist thought on the matter. But I haven't heard a good, most black people favor voter ID laws. Actually, most people favor voter ID laws. So should not be surprising

that most black people also favor voter ID laws. And you know, I think if somebody's on their way to, you know, if there's somebody's drive, somebody uses analogy that they're that's pretty good. It's driving on their way to vote and they actually get pulled over. This is an unmodified vote. That's your way out of actually a spinning ticket. Because if you're on your way to vote, you don't need a voter ID. But if you're driving anywhere

else, you do. It's kind of a funny little paradox. So most it's common sense. It's called common sense because most people it's everywhere tend to have it. And I think most people agree on this issue. We now have enough of a mandate. So I think let's just, let's just do it. We are proud at TCN to offer quality long form programming films, documentaries, short series. And we've got a new one rolling it out. It's a six part documentary series called

All the Presidents Men, The Conspiracy Against Trump. It's made by our friend and documentary, filmmaker Sean Stone, all six episodes available now at Tucker Carlson.com. It's an in-depth

look at what happened in the first Trump administration 2016 to 2020. And while the rest of us sort of busy watching TV behind the scenes, permanent Washington, particularly the interlations and the law enforcement agencies under the indirect, but pretty clear command of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, set out to systematically destroy not just Donald Trump, but the people around him, people who supported him. And this series explains exactly what happened. It's

worth seeing as Donald Trump starts his second presidency. This series has interviews with the people who are targeted and presents it in a way that will help you understand exactly what happened. How American democracy, as democracy, was undermined by the people who claimed to be defending it. It's in this series. And it's absolutely worth it. All the Presidents Men, The Conspiracy Against Trump, out now on Tucker Carlson.com.

So how did you, when I saw you in Florida on election night with Trump and clearly like him, he clearly likes you, you know, running against somebody for office is not a natural environment for a friendship to sprout at all. It was, you know, Jeb Bush was not there. Yeah. How did you end up liking Trump, how did you end up liking you? Why do you have such an easy friendship after running against him? I think we're both unusual individuals

in ways that caused us to gel. Actually, I didn't see the point in running against Trump for sure. And, you know, I made my case for why I thought I was right, candidate. You know, I think that there's, I was the youngest person ever to run for you as president as a Republican. And I do think that there is an opportunity to lead and bring in a new generation in some ways as we have nonetheless in the last year. But I didn't do the Trump

bashing thing. Like it just seemed, seemed kind of lame. It seemed really facile. He was the best. But is these things, that's right. Everyone starts out that way. But then it gets intense. Yeah. And we had our, we had our sharp moments over the course of the campaign. Sure. But it wasn't how it wasn't personal. Well, how did you do that? How did you not get mad? They all get mad at the end. It was, it was interesting. I guess the whole

thing wasn't an exercise that I took super personally. Anyway, I think when you take this stuff too personally, it becomes exhausting. But for me, it was, look, I feel like I have a calling for the country. I'm running for something. I'm running for my vision. And you know what, along the way, because it was deeply consistent with my vision, I respected Donald Trump. Like in a certain sense, if you think about like a family business or something, right?

You have, you're going to have a guy who, the started it, the bequeath, sit to his kids. At some point along the way, there are some bumps in the road in terms of, you know, how that happens and when and when's the right time for the torch to be passed on. And those would be legitimate disagreements, arguments within the context of family business. I

know many people who have been in that similar position. And so in that sense of carrying the American torch, we can have like a reasonable debate about when the right time is for that to be able to pass on to the next generation of leaders or whatever. But I came from a place of actual deep respect for Donald Trump the whole time that I ran because one of the

reasons why is it was a fact of the matter that I was self aware about myself. I would not have thought about running for US president had Donald Trump not actually done it as a first time outsider and one in 2016 course. Like I don't think that that, I don't think that idea would have occurred to me. I'm a, you know, I'm an entrepreneur. I believe

in achieving things that have been achieved before. But that particular thing, I just wouldn't have even considered that possibility had Donald Trump not run one and been a successful president. And so, you know, I said it on the debate stage at the Donald Trump was the greatest president of the 21st century. And I think it actually caused more anger from the other candidates on that stage at me for the rest of the race than Donald Trump or

I ever had with respect to each other. They didn't like that very much. Who didn't like it? Well, I think most of the other people on the debates actually, how many were there were there? This started with like 10, you know, I, the last debate I had, it was four of us up there. That was interesting. Oh, there was, there's so many things I would do differently, but that's, that's the story for, like what's the story for another day?

You know, I think the hardest, the hardest part was in the short windows into a campaign that you, that you have interfacing with like 300 million people. I think even the people who are in physical rooms with me understood me at a different and deeper level than the 99.9% of the electric that never was, but who saw, saw the few windows that they had to

see who you are. Now, the debates, one of the things I learned about them is that this different for general election debate, if you're going against like Trump versus Harris or Trump versus Biden, people watched that and for good reason, I'm glad they did. But like in a, in a Republican primary debate in the early cycle, where there's like 10 people standing on a stage, most people don't actually watch that debate or see what happened for

themselves. No. But what they do see is the distillation of it. And so the clips, as we say, the clips, but even even the, even just like the verbal descriptions of actually what happened, that's what they get is the synthesis. So the audience functionally of a primary debate isn't really the electorate. It's two groups of people. It's the gatekeepers in the media and it is the people who fund campaigns. Like that's the audience that actually

matters. I mean, I'm not saying it should work that way and I'm saying I wanted to work that way. But functionally, if you're looking at moving the ball forward in a, in a race, that is the group that determines whether or not that event actually advanced your campaign forward towards victory. And at certain point in the campaign, I mean, you and I actually spoke a few times over it, including over conversations like this we had while I was running.

You know, the conclusion I arrived at was, here's my strategy. I'm going to tell you what I actually believe right now. And 99% of the time, that was the same thing that I believe four years ago, 1% of the time it was not, but I'm going to tell you what I believe right now and I'm going to tell it to you straight without filters. And it felt like that should

be a winning electoral strategy. I'm not sure it's the winning electoral strategy, but this race was just so different from any other one because in retrospect, there's literally, it's foolish for anybody myself included to think that anybody else was going to come

out of this process other than Donald Trump as the nominee. And it's because the moment right now that we're in the people of this country know what they need when they need it and they needed a guy who had been there, who had, who was strong enough, who wasn't necessarily an ideologue, but who was a badass who actually had had the experience and was ready from those learnings to be charged up and go back in and actually take it to the

next level. So they knew that and I don't think the outcome was going to be any different of terms of who the nominee was regardless of what I did, but there was still a lot of

a lot of learnings through the process. Now things like I could have done better. I mean, a million things could have done better, but I think that, you know, I think that being unsparing as I was, I think I that I wouldn't change, but to be able to combine that a little bit more with if there's a way for me to allow a lot of people to sort of know me the way that like my employees at my businesses know me or my closest friends know me, I would,

I would love to think about how to do that. Donald Trump's actually really good at that. Yeah, he is. Yeah. And I think that he is, he's like the best at it. And watching him even in the years since I left the campaign has been eye opening. It's been kind of inspiring

actually. And it's made me think a lot about he's able to take, you know, 20,000 people in a room at a time, but also 100 million people not in the room at that time to really get to know him, like who he is and feel like they actually deeply know him as a person as opposed to just as policies. I think it was really good at allowing a lot of people around the country to know what my policies were, what my specifics of were my vision

for America. I found it a little bit hard to figure out how to let people on the other side of, right? No, I know who you actually get it. It's difficult. That was that was like kind of one of the one of the reflects Trump is more self deprecating than he gets credit for quite self deprecating. It's actually really funny. It's really funny. The other night in the last week of the campaign, he was pivoting against the Trump voters are garbage

by this comment. He shows up in a garbage truck wearing, I think you were there wearing this, you know, day glow vast. And he comes out on stage wearing it and he says by staff told me they wanted me to wear this. I want to wear it. And they said to me, makes you look thinner. Yeah, I like that. And I said anything makes you look thinner. I'm

so far. That's hilarious. It's hard to say stuff like that about yourself. So what about I've just wondered like one of the sort of ongoing side skirmishes that I tried to pay too much attention to, but it's a little mesmerizing is that is the the never Trump movement. Oh, yeah. What's going on with that? Well, I don't think nothing anything actually. And I'm actually because they're all people I know. Yeah. Because I'm from Washington for

you. For you. Yeah. And they're so they're just so repulsive to me. But what do you just going on? I think there's a kind of psychological. A whole set. It's almost like a condition that needs to be treated with 100% by a priest or something totally. If you're, you know, whatever Dick Cheney's repulsive little daughter or Jonah Goldberg or say, you know, it's like you're not. They're just not impressive people. They were exercising a 30 far beyond what they had earned in my view in the first

place, both are the products of nepotism. And they're just mad that their world ended whatever. But here's the I don't want to be mean about it. Though that was really mean. But true. It's not honest. It was true. But the in the closing days of the campaign, the Harris people kept telling us there were a lot of people like that. There were a lot of Republican women who weren't going to vote for Trump because he's too repulsive.

They wouldn't tell their husbands. They wouldn't tell their husbands. And they're going to vote for Kamala Harris. And it turns out like the never Trump world has gotten so much attention. But there's like no one in no clothes. Absolutely. There's no one there. Totally. Yeah. It was it actually ended up just being a mirage. That whole thing at the end started. That actually really got into my skin a little bit like the whole thing about going to the

ballot box and vote differently than your husband. Like that was a pitch that was made subverting the family. Subverting the marriage, encouraging a spouse to why. Yeah. You could vote differently, but like the idea that you want to do it secretly creates this some kind of I mean, so it's it's the ultimate division play because identity politics divide the

based on is the division. It's the natural extension of like division on race, division on gender division on gender within the household because they're fundamentally against the household as a unit. Anyway, that's for sure. And so that was that was that was probably the thing to piss me off. Well, I don't understand it. I mean, I know someone really well was saying that, wow, you know, we're voting differently in our household. I sit to my wife. If

we had dip, we're going to vote for different people. First of all, I would say absolutely not. We're not going for different people. So we're not going to vote if we're going to vote for different people. And second, we're going to take the weekend and talk for as long as it takes to get on the same page. Yeah. And maybe I'll change my view. Maybe I'll change yours, but we're going to align because we're married. Yeah. I don't even understand

that. You're on the same team. 100% Yeah. Yeah. So basically, they're encouraging people to not only split the team, but to lie about it. And actually that's a lie to your husband. Yeah. Well, that is the Democratic Party just distilled. It's the lie to your husband parts. The weak man unhappy woman party. Oh, it makes me there's something really sinister about that. There's something sinister about it. But it reveals I mean, that's what it's

something sinister about it. But it's also, I mean, it's transparently what the agenda is. Of course. Yeah. And so that was in some ways, the tactics of the politics of it revealed a big part of what the whole project was like. They were they were always telling you during COVID or during the BLM riots, the real insurrection, which is what that was, you know, go home and lecture your racist uncle or grandfather at the Thanksgiving

days. That's right. That's right. That was again, that was again, destroy your family over what your ideological obligation is. Do you think the culture changes? I think it I think it has to. I mean, I think if we get our job right here, let's say we're just going and dismantling new can, you know, the administrative state actually fixing illegal immigration in this country and actually having secure national borders, reviving our

self confidence, I can't see how the culture doesn't change. And in some ways, actually, it's a cultural change. That might even just be the wrong framing of it. That is a small part of the story. I think it's always the culture has already changed and the best evidence

of that is what we saw. I'd last couple of days. What we saw on Tuesday night were by the way, at the time you and I scheduled us to sit down, I was kind of skeptical because I thought we're going to be like sitting here, looking at like TV screens and like counting ballots in Pennsylvania, something like that, which would have been a horrific way to spend

time. But the fact that we're not doing that and that very night, we actually knew the result in a way that nobody anticipated suggests that we actually have already had the cultural change in this country. And it was just revealed to be so. Whatever happened to Joe Biden, is he? I mean, that I'm not making fun of him. I feel sorry. I do. I do too. But I've never seen anyone disappear faster than Joe Biden.

You never heard a word. I wonder what his attitude is towards the Obama family right now towards Barack Obama because Joe Biden certainly would have been a more compelling candidate than Hillary Clinton in 2016. And so this guy has had this life dream. He's worked his entire life became a senator was elected like the age of 30 or 29 or whatever. And then when he's elected and he was turned 30, who has aspired his entire life over the span

of decades, beginning long before I was born over 50 years for this for this. I mean, like significantly longer than I was born. This man has been a US senator and aspired to be US president to say that finally when his turn came around in 2015 after faithfully serving as a vice president or whatever to say that no, no, eight years, eight years going through that ignominate and then to have to have Hillary Clinton to say no, no, no, it's not your

time. And then finally, he just says, okay, after Hillary loses, I'm just going to do this myself anyway by a hell or high water. That's a whole separate discussion gets his way

into the White House. And then to say the same guy comes back and you know, who knows if the reporting on this is true, but effectively threatens to have him constitutionally removed from office and to lead a go unless you bend the knee, the same guy only to then watch again, the woman instead who in this time was nominated, the last time was Hillary Clinton this time it's hilarious. Fail at the very mission that you otherwise run. I cannot even

begin to fathom what that what that feels like. He is surely the happiest person about the election result on Tuesday night in America, right? Because he's at least personally, maybe him or Jill Biden. Yeah. His wife are the had to have been the two most, you know, Shadon Freud relieved Americans. But it's it's it's in how is he doing? I don't know, does that help if you're going through like a state of cognitive decline? Does something

like that as painful as that is? Does that sense of agreement and desire for vengeance actually kind of sharpen you? Maybe it does because it did seem like he actually got a little bit sharper actually after he was the actor is like part of him. It's like part of him came back, right? And so his wife were read on election day. Oh, did she? Yeah, I mean, you were a mega hat. Yeah. So, you know, it's it's not like they were they were

hiding it too much. But you know, it's it's it's just a fascinating. It's neither critical nor not. It's just it's just interesting sociologically and just psychological. What about the rest of the party? Like if you I mean, well, you failed you ran for president and get elected. And I know for cause I talked to you about it, there was a time after where you thought, okay, you know, what did I do right? What did I do wrong? Were you take

on a stock of your own behavior? Because that's that's what it is to grow. That's called adulthood. Yeah. Is there a moment like that for the democratic party? Do you think? I think I hope there is actually I'm kind of rooting for that because that'd be better for the country. I mean, the number one person who's responsible for whether or not you achieve your goal is you actually. There's a lot of other factors you can blame. Of course.

And the number one determinant of whether you achieve what you said out to achieve is you. And that applies to the level of an individual. And if your team is in a political party in American politics, then that's true for for your team, right? They they were responsible for their own failure and demise. I saw some interesting things over the last day. And

it hasn't it hasn't been as like monolithically crazy as I expected. I expected everybody just in lockstep in the same way to go the same direction of, you know, threat to democracy, authoritarianism has reached America. And we're seeing certainly a lot of that. That's like 90% of it. But I think there were, I think some thoughtful moments of reflection of, you know, a few folks like I think I don't know this guy, but someone sent me his

tweet. Just this Eglaceous sound right. Madagascar. Yeah. He had something thoughtful like I in my campaign. I had I tend truths. Ten things that are true that I lay out that was kind of the centerpiece of my campaign. Yeah. You might remember they sent to me. He had nine today, but like he left it. Yeah. He forgot number 10 was the joke that somebody sent me, but actually I read them and it was they were all smart and reasonable. You saw

this. Yeah. I don't like Matt. Why Glaceous at all. But I know I saw I saw I saw a non fan and I'm willing to admit that all nine of them were great. Yeah. It actually it actually that the US government exists for the benefit of its citizens. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. It was stuff like that. It was stuff that was not too dissimilar from what you were I might say about our vision for what totally agree to be. You know, I disagree with some of

the stuff on there. The framing of it. He said, what is he said something about climate change? Like I just think the whole agenda is artificial. He said, well, climate change is real, but it's not a goal in itself. It is a means to the end of doing what's better for humanity. And I thought that framing was I agree. It was at least like as a framing

matter, the right way to look at it. And so if that's evidence to say that even within a period of 48 hours, you can at least have thoughtful voices on the other side who are willing to look themselves in the mirror, admit failure, inquired about the nature of the screw up and maybe even begin to offer some path forward. I think that actually leaves me. I'm just to know I'm I'm I'm all the times you and I've gotten together. I'm probably

in like the most hopeful mood. I've actually ever been in right now. And I'm hopeful for the future of the Republican Party. I'm hopeful for the future of our country. But like a weird part of me is almost hopeful for the future of the Democratic Party based on or they agree. Oh, either that or they're going to have to go the way the Harvard and Yale that we talked about earlier, either that or they die. Right. So it's either evolve or

die. Someone who's been fired a lot. I can say there's nothing better for you than failure. Yeah. You know, there's oh, it's a essential. Yeah. Yeah, because you'll never reassess. You know, winning, succeeding. I think exacerbates your worst qualities. Totally. Because it covers them up and because hopefully it affirms your hubris and like I'm successful because I'm so great. Yeah. That's not in total. So this time of year, we are focused on our families

because we're apt to be with our families celebrating together. And it's the time of year where you might ask yourself, what happens when you're gone? What's left behind? Well, protect your family's future and peace of mind with a product called policy genius. Policy genius has one goal to make it easy to find and buy life insurance. So your loved ones have something when you're not here. Something that you use to cover debts and expenses

of something unexpected happens because unexpected things do happen. With policy genius, you don't need to struggle to do this. You can find life insurance policies that started $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage. Some options are 100% online and that lets you avoid unnecessary medical exams, which is always good. Policy genius combines digital tools with the expertise of real licensed agents. You compare quotes from America's

top insurers side by side for free and there are no hidden fees. Their license support team helps you get what you need fast. You can get on with your life. Join thousands of happy policy genius customers who left five star reviews on Google and trust pilot. So secure your families tomorrow. So you have peace of mind today. It's easy. Go to policygenius.com slash Tucker to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. Again, it's policygenius.com slash Tucker.

One last question. E1. Yes. I think you've known for a while. You're from similar worlds. Tell us what you think is significance in this election was and what is significance will be going forward. Huge. I actually haven't known him for that long. I only got to know him last year. He gave you dinner. I was out while I was running for president. We really hit it off. I like people who are extremely intelligent and he is in the category

of extreme intelligence. He's somebody who is able to not only able to, but requires himself to be doing multiple different things at the same time and he's better individually at each of those things because he's also doing those other things at the same time.

But I think that his significance was twofold. One is he really expanded that permission structure we were talking about earlier for people who are elite in America, people who define their status based on the number of dollars in their bank out, which I think is probably the wrong way to look at your own status as a human being. But we all have our

biases. If the richest man in the world and the most successful self-made man in human history can publicly state his support for Donald Trump, then there's nothing stopping me

from doing so. If I believe that's right, and he's pretty darn smart actually. So if this guy both can do it from a social perspective, but also as intelligent as he is to send rocket status space and back more intelligent in the US government has, you know, ever if he can kind of do the analysis and say that Donald Trump's going to be the right choice for the future of the country, then you know what? Maybe I should do some simpler thinking of my

own and have the courage to arrive at the same place. So in terms of blowing out that permission structure, like that was certainly what I considered to be one of my responsibilities over the last year. But the person who really blew that out, bar none, was Elon when he came out publicly in Dorst Trump. And I love the way he did it because it was clearly he was just moved by the fact that okay, he was maybe thinking about it. Who knows who knows where exactly

he was in his journey right there. And I talked at various points, but I don't know that he was going to come out and publicly endorse Trump in the way he did. But there was this supernatural event. I do think it was it was a divine moment in American history where we have heard it a natural disaster, a national disaster by about two centimeters. And Elon just said, okay, it's done. I'm doing this. He's an American hero and I'm endorsing him. Either that was number

one. Number two was on just the execution of it too. And this election, I mean, Pennsylvania was it turns out Donald Trump would have won regardless. But Pennsylvania was the key that allowed us to really secure this victory and to just go in and say, I've got a lot of political consultants and a lot of people in traditional Republican party apparatuses who have, you know, tried to figure this stuff out and say, no, I'm just actually going to figure out myself directly and understand

here's low propensity voters. I'm going to personally go and talk to them myself. I'm going to spend nine figures or whatever it was in the end. I think it was at least nine figures to actually make sure that we get the job done and then get the job done. I think was was essential actually to this victory. And so I hope he's an essential part going forward of saving the country and using this mandate to shred to pieces that federal bureaucracy. You and I talked about earlier. And I hope

he's, you know, doesn't lose his interest in American politics for a long time to come. You know, you and I think have been on the side of because you hear the subjection now coming up, which actually infuriates me about, oh, well, what about all of a sudden now after 14 years of being silent on this from the left? We don't like this influence of money in politics. Well, okay. Trump got outspent three to one exactly. Readle one exactly exactly in the swing states, right?

So so long as we have the game. And I think that this is something for our side to, you know, man up into as well is if you're going to play the game, like you got to compete actually.

And we can't just win this against the so called successful or elites or whatever. No, like actually we are better off if we have our own cadre of superhuman heroes who are able to with their own unique skills be they cultural leaders or business leaders or whatever to have our own version of our, you know, special for especially since nobody I mean, I don't like most political donors. I know them all and most of them have creepy agendas or they just want to be

get their picture taken with a politician, which is like a very low motive in my view. Yeah. Elon is not unique, but he's very unusual and that he doesn't really want anything. Yeah, he's really wanting to think I mean, he certainly doesn't need anything. That's what I'm saying. A lot of lose, but he certainly doesn't know. He just wanted to think for himself. Like he's not in it. Obviously not for the money. Yeah. And there's something uniting about it. He was not

conservative. I mean, the whole Trump phenomenon is if you take three steps back, unifying. Yeah. I think it is a unifying moment. Worth it. I'll choose in Brooklyn voting for Donald Trump. Yeah. You had Muslims in Southeast Michigan voting for Donald Trump. It was awesome. You had sugar, cane workers, the people who cut the cane and Florida and the people who own the ranches. All voting for Donald Trump. You had North Georgia, you know, white red necks and you had black

men in Atlanta all voting for Trump. Totally. And then above them all is Elon Musk who's like just sort of this figure who's above politics. He's for Trump. I don't know. There's something. Yeah, it was part of it was it was in some ways. In some ways, you could say like, what was the causal link that he played it if you were in your analytical hat? I think it was huge. There's also some broader sense in which this was just destined to happen. Totally. This was all just playing out.

Oh, I'm with you. Like we're going to have like a false analytical hubris here by just like dissecting exactly. No, no, but you're just it was just all destined. It was just going to have just. Yeah, no, and this was all part of it playing out. And you know, I think you like you know, I mean, you're there when they won. You know, even even just over the last year. I mean,

I, and yeah, I'm not mean, we would mean to commit the sin of flattening into your face. But I think one of the things I liked about our conversations and, you know, I, you know, I fashioned, you know, fashion myself as having some of this as well is just having like a little bit of an intuition of where things are going a little bit like just like just get a pulse of the country

and this sort of see it. I think you and I had what conversations over the last year where I think we were both on the same page about early on last year in like spring of 2023. Being both convinced that Joe Biden was not going to be the nominee. Yeah, that's right. And then you said it many times. Well, and there's some darker. There's some darker ones in in yeah, I think sadly predicted, but we're wrong about by two centimeters. Yes, exactly.

Thankfully. And you know, even the idea that this is going to be a landslide, you could just sort of feel it, right? It was just it was just in the ether. And so in some sense, like at our at our very best, we might kind of smell it coming, but it was coming either way. And so I think the more we remember that that actually is I think what's uniting actually. Once you see that, that's really uniting the idea that it's not being done by us actually. It's being done through us. Like

that's a liberating feeling. And in that sense, you and I or any other everyday American is united with a, you know, Elon Musk to Donald Trump, like we're all part of I think a higher plan. It's being done through us. This was coming. It was going to happen one factor or not. And you know, in some ways, we're all just playing our little piece of a role in in playing out what was going to play out all along. I can't improve on that. That's that's the greatest summation I've

heard of this election. So, Vic, thank you very much. Good seeing you, man. Great to see you. So the story of the last few years is the story of watching institutions you loved and trusted be revealed as totally corrupt and filthy. And it's bewildering. And you never thought it would happen to your beloved nicotine pouch company. But that's exactly what happened to us. The people I thought my friends had sinned their employees were sending the overwhelming percentage of their

donations to Kamala Harris. And before Kamala Harris, it was Joe Biden. And before Joe Biden, it was Hillary Clinton. And I thought, why in the world am I using a product made by people who hate me? And by the way, it's not very good. It's dry like a tea bag. I'm a man that's disgusting. And I thought to myself, I'm going to create an alternative because there's no way I'm going to spend another dollar on a product made by people like this. And so we created an alternative.

And it's called Alp and it's delicious. And when you try it, there will be no doubt in your mind that it's much better than anything the Zinn Corporation, the humorless Kamala Harris supporting Zinn Corporation has ever produced, it's delicious. And it's moist. It's not dry like a tea bag, which again is disgusting and possibly immoral. That's not to say that there isn't some role for Zinn or whatever. I mean, I think, you know, if you're got a girlfriend who's drunk at a

Taylor Swift concert, probably throwing a Zinn, that's like a time and place thing. It's like appropriate for that. I'm sure most people at a Taylor Swift concert are using Zinn. That's not what this is for. This is for people who really enjoy nicotine pouches who aren't ashamed of that, who don't want to buy products from a company that hates them and their culture, and who have some self-respective of what a tea bag are going to Taylor Swift concerts.

That's, I mean, again, we're not judging anyone who does. This is not the product for you. So we are proud to announce that Alp will be available for purchase on our website AlpPouch.com starting in November and in stores shortly after. In the meantime, you can sign up our VIP list is at AlpPouch.com to get exclusive early bird access to our products and they are great. Have one in right now, in fact. Warning! This product contains nicotine.

Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson's show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to Tucker Carlson.com to see everything that we have made the complete library. Tucker Carlson.com