Joe Rogan Experience #2526 - JD Vance
5036 segments
Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out.
>> The Joe Rogan Experience.
>> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY
NIGHT. All day.
>> U. So, the last time we talked [music]
uh last time I saw you, we were at a
cage fight at the White House.
>> That's right. That's [laughter]
That's
>> one of the craziest experiences of my
life. It must have been one of the
craziest experiences of your life.
>> Oh, yeah. It took me like 2 weeks
afterwards to recover just to like go,
did that actually happen? That seems It
seems so insane.
>> Okay. The most insane part of it, which
I guess was was before you got there to
to me at least, is you like you come
into work every day in the White House,
right? You you know, I have an office in
the West Wing. There's the Oval Office
in the West Wing. And you look out the
window and as this like eightstory
complex was growing up, it was the it
was just the most unbelievable thing. I
think it's like the south lawn of the
White House, but you've got the eighth
wonder of the world [laughter] being
built up around it. And every day I'd
look at it and be like, it would take me
a couple seconds to be like, "What the
hell is going on?" And I like, "Oh yeah,
it's UFC. It's UF UFC coming in a couple
weeks."
>> The whole thing was surreal. First of
all, it was crazy that the weather just
went around us.
>> Like there was a real moment where the
fights would have been postponed until
10:30 p.m. to start.
>> Correct. And uh last minute the storm
just diverted.
>> That's right. Well, and uh you know this
this uh this book that I have that I'm I
guess we'll talk about a little bit, but
the book tour started the next day. So I
was flying to New York the next day to
talk about it. And all I could think
about is every time we got the update
from White House weather, oh it might
not start until 10:30. I was thinking to
myself, "Holy [ __ ] that means I'm going
to go to bed at like 4:00 a.m. I'm going
to look like a total crazy person when I
try [laughter] to go talk about go talk
about this book." But yeah, it it it
amazingly it did work out. Honestly, it
actually helped a little bit because, as
you know, it was hot as hell out there
and it was super humid, you know, mid
June in in in DC. And I think the
weather actually helped cool it down a
little bit because by about 10:00 or so,
I was not thinking it's hot as hell out
here anymore.
>> Yeah, it wasn't too bad. But I talked to
Justin Gatey about it and he said it was
a problem when he was fighting. He said
the air was very thick. Okay.
>> Like it like right after the first
round, he was like, "Boy,
>> like this is rough." Cuz that hot humid
air and you know it's
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, it's it's it's fine
walking around.
>> It's it's I mean it's okay walking
around. It still feels it is a swamp,
right? That's why people call it the
swamp. So, you know, that's obviously
June 14th. That's the president.
>> That's not why they call it the swamp.
[laughter]
>> That's one of the reasons why they call
it the swamp.
>> They call it the swamp.
>> They call it swamp because of my
colleagues, too.
>> Cuz it's filled with [laughter] mud and
water and gunk and [ __ ] and swamp
monsters.
>> Oh, man. So, that's June 14th. So, it's
the president's birthday. That's also
was that was my 12th wedding
anniversary.
>> Oh, wow. and uh my wife. So that's
that's the one thing like if somebody
runs in here, it's because my wife's
going into labor cuz she's like 39 weeks
pregnant. But uh I remember we go out to
dinner like right before the UFC fight
and we're of course checking the weather
report to figure out what's going on.
And you know, my wife normally likes to
come to the cool stuff of being vice
president. That was the one where she
was like, "It's hot. I'm super pregnant
and I'm not going to sit sit out there
for six hours." So
>> yeah, I couldn't imagine [laughter]
Also, it was just there was so much
chaos and and the potential for real
chaos was always there. First of all,
you have the Ellipse. So, the Ellipse
has what 85,000
people outside
>> and for people that watching at home
like we could hear them like when the
fights when when something would happen
>> in like kind of a delayed way, right?
>> You hear the cheers from the people that
were near. So, it was like 3,000 plus
people tightly close to the octagon and
then you had 85,000 people in the Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> in the background. It was very eerie.
>> Yeah.
>> I actually loved that. Like I loved the
delay reaction to where you know
somebody get a good punch in or you know
you get a takedown and then it was
almost like the wave, right? Cuz there
was the initial center of it and then
the people outside of it.
>> It was pretty sick.
>> It was pretty sick. It was very
[laughter] cool. I think Dana said not
once in a lifetime or not once in a
generation or once in a lifetime
experience.
>> Yeah. I mean, it's once ever. Yeah. I
don't see any other president. I mean,
if you become president, you're not
going to do that, [laughter] right?
>> Uh I don't know, man.
>> It's I wouldn't I didn't want to do it.
>> Very cool. Get it over with. Do it once.
>> It was the only time in the history of
the sport where there's been seven
stoppages. Seven Seven knockouts. Like
every single fight was a knockout.
>> I didn't realize that.
>> Yeah. Every single fight. Okay.
>> But the thing is like we've had seven
knockouts in a card. I think this last
weekend we had 10 10 stoppages.
>> But um
>> that was different because it was like
14 fights. That's right.
>> This is all fights. Every single fight
was a knockout.
>> So the last fight. When did you realize
that was over
>> with Connor?
>> Yeah.
>> Um when he fell down the second time I
was like this is not good. F the first
time I thought he just slipped. It's
hard to tell. It's wild. It's in the
moment. I thought he slipped and then
when he got up and he threw a kick
again, I'm like, "Oh, I don't like how
his leg just gave out." That didn't seem
like I'm still hoping he's just
slipping.
>> Yeah.
>> I'm hoping he's just freaking out cuz he
hasn't been in the octagon in 5 years.
>> And then he started moving around and he
he like grabbed his knee and buckled.
>> Okay.
>> And there was some conversation that
Yeah. There was some conversation going
on between him and Max Holloway. And I
was like,
>> you know, Max is saying he can't fight.
Like something's wrong. and he's saying,
"Fight me." He's like, "Get up." And so
he lets him up and then his his knee
buckles. Then the referee stops the
fight.
>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. There it always So so
the the very I think it was the very
last fight where the the ref tried to
call it at the end of the third round
and then because he was he was saying
that there was a concussion issue. I
mean I couldn't tell what was going on.
>> This the Ilia Tapora fight, the Justin
Gate fight at the White House.
>> The Taporio Justin fight.
>> He couldn't see.
>> Okay.
>> He was saying he couldn't see. Well,
something was wrong with his right eye.
>> Well, I mean it looks like his whole
face was puffed up, so he couldn't see
anything, but Okay. So, I thought it was
a concussion thing, but it was it was
because of his vision.
>> No, they never got they I mean, the
concussion thing would only be if
someone had been battered. There's a lot
of times where fighters are fighting
with concussions.
>> Yeah, it happens all the time. You get
dropped in the first round, you probably
have a concussion. You get back up, you
keep fighting, you're fighting on
instincts. There's been many times where
fighters wake up in like the fourth
round
>> and they've fought three rounds and they
don't remember it at all.
>> God, that's pretty crazy.
>> Not the best way to make a living.
[laughter]
>> Not the best way to make a living, man.
Yeah. No. So, we saw Gachi um at the
White House a couple of weeks ago and I
asked him, I was like, "So, are you done
fighting?" And he kind of hesitated a
little bit and then I think it was his
mom was in the Oval Office with her.
She's like, "Yes." [laughter]
>> Yeah. But, you know, if they offer him
some life-changing money for one more
fight after that performance, I have a
feeling he'll take it.
>> Like, what is what could he fetch for
his next fight? Like 50 more?
>> It's a good question. You know, I don't
know what his contract is. I don't know
how it works. I don't know what the most
anyone's ever I try not to pay attention
to that stuff
>> because I'm not on the business end of
the sport.
>> It kind of color your perception a
little bit.
>> It can. And it's also it's I mean I want
them to get paid the most amount
possible. That's my perspective. Yeah.
>> But what I'm my job is just to analyze
and to see what's going on and to
commentate and try to give color and
life to what's happening inside the
octagon. And I don't I try not to dwell
too much on the money. I just want them
to get paid a lot. Yeah.
>> I want them to be able to retire and
never have to do anything ever again.
>> Sure.
>> I don't know if Justin could do that.
What's crazy about it to me is just how
much the sport has replaced boxing and
like there's still obviously boxing is
still a big deal and fighters still get
paid a lot of money but like I remember
when I was I don't know in high school I
feel like people would get really
excited about the big heavyweight
heavyweight title bout. Now it's the UFC
thing.
>> So culturally it's like UFC has taken
over boxing and I don't I mean I don't
know how or why that happened. Like I
don't know if it's just good marketing
or if it's just the fights are so much
more real and intense. Like I but it's
it is a crazy shift that's happened in
20 years.
>> Well, I've had some I had some friends
this past weekend that manage fighters.
My friend Josh Dubin and a few other
friends that actually manage boxers come
to the UFC and they were all like, "Oh
my god, this is so much better than a
boxing promotion." Because you c all the
fights are exciting. With boxing, most
people are just there for the main
event.
>> And a lot of people don't even stroll in
until like 15 minutes before the main
event. Sure.
>> Like all the famous people that sit in
the front row.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Uh in the UFC, that place is packed for,
>> you know, five, six, seven fights in.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, and there's 14 fights in the
night and all of them are amazing. It's
like in the beginning it's usually like
half full
>> depending on where you are. If you're in
a place like Salt Lake City, it's pretty
packed like right away because they only
get like one event every year or
>> so.
>> But um it's just a more exciting sport.
There's more ways to win. It's more
dynamic. More things happen
>> and there's more stars. There's so many
stars in the UFC.
>> Yeah. So I'd never seen a fight live
before. Like I've watched them on TV,
but I'd never been there live. So kind
of crazy that it's literally in the
south lawn of the White House. But the
thing that I found completely shocking
about it was like I would think those
those like arm bar takedowns are just
done. Like that's it. You're over. But
there were a couple of times where
somebody had another person's arm and
>> Yeah, that was Josh Hoit and Derrick
Lewis.
>> Bless you.
>> Um and it's like holy [ __ ]
>> Yeah, he
>> you're going to have your arm broken off
and yet he didn't.
>> He wasn't doing it right.
>> Okay. [laughter] Josh Hok is a great
wrestler and he's an excellent fighter,
but he's not really a submission
specialist. I mean, he did get the arm
bar, but he didn't do it right. Okay.
>> He was basically like pulling on. You
have to elevate your hips and you have
to create space so that the arm is
bending back this way. His arm is
essentially flat to his chest, which is
not what you want. What you want is
>> a back arch like this where you see like
how it is right there. Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, what he wants to do here, what he
should do instead of having his hips
down, his knees up, what you're supposed
to do is heavy leg curls with the leg
and elevate the hips up and pull it way
back. So, he'd almost be bridging it. He
would be on the top of his shoulders and
bridging and then he would have broken
his arm. The other option is you pull it
off to the side like this.
>> Yeah.
>> And you put it to the side of your hip
and you can break it that way.
>> Okay.
>> But it's just bad technique.
>> Okay. So, watching it. No offense, Josh.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Watching it, I didn't
realize that. I just could not believe
that dude held out for like 30 seconds
with his
>> Was that more shocking or when he said
Michelle Obama is a man? [laughter]
Which one was more shocking?
>> Uh, definitely the armbar part. Man,
[laughter] I I work in politics. People
say crazy stuff all the time.
>> Well, he says that every fight, does he?
>> Yeah. Yeah, he said it. He said that the
last time I interviewed him.
>> Oh, man. Well, it's
>> He's like a pro wrestling character.
People lost their minds about it.
>> I know.
>> Lost their minds about it to the point
where again I had the view either the
next day or the day after to sort of
promote this book.
>> That must be fun.
>> It was crazy. It was harder than any
anything I've done in politics. But the
the the to the point where all of my
comm's people, the thing they were most
worried about was they're going to ask
you about Michelle Obama being called a
man. Like what what are you [laughter]
like what are you going to say about it?
And I was like, what an amped up fighter
told a joke after a fight. Said
something after a fight and that's
actually national news. I'm still
surprised. I've been in politics now for
three or four years. I'm still shocked
the [ __ ] that people get really fired up
about.
>> Well, I kind of understand it because
it's at the White House. First of all, a
cage fight at the White House is crazy
already. I mean, if he said Michelle
Obama's a man at the T-Mobile Arena in
Vegas, it's like, okay,
>> less of a story. He what he is is he's a
very good fighter first of all and but
sometimes that's not enough to get
attention and so what Josh has done is
created this persona like this pro
wrestling bad guy persona when you talk
to him offstage he's like very normal
very smart guy
>> it's just like he's decided like look I
want to maximize the amount of eyeballs
that see me and I'm going to create this
crazy person he comes out to the Hulk
Hogan song I'm a real American
who has sunglasses on, American flag
band. It's, you know, he's
>> I mean, I love I love the I love the
presentation, but again, I like
>> not the best thing to say at the White
House. Michelle Obama's a man is not the
best thing to say.
>> Fair, but the reaction to it to me was
still totally disproportionate.
>> Yeah, of course.
>> People say, Dude, people say stuff all
the time. And what I Okay, I I live I I
I work in a business where obviously
people make life decision, life and
death decisions all the time. And I'm
always a little bit caught off guard by
the culture that just overreacts when
clearly the thing what that Josh is
trying to get is the overreaction in the
first place, right?
>> So you give him exactly what he wants
and like the worst you could say is,
"Oh, that was an offensive comment." And
you get on with the rest of your life.
Like that's the worst that you could
say. the people who really flip out
about it and kind of lose their minds. I
just I don't understand that.
>> Well, first of all, I think a lot of it
is there is an economy that is
essentially based on getting reactions.
>> Correct.
>> And there's a lot of people that are
just, for a lack of a better term,
they're they're not real. They're
they're reactions are performative. Like
a lot of what they're doing is just
trying to trying to comment on things
and get clicks and likes and views. And
social media has ruined discourse in a
lot of ways because people
>> it has
>> people are not having like real
conversations about things. is they're
reacting to things on Instagram and
>> and you know they're just they they look
at an opportunity like that like oh I
found a gold nugget
>> they're like this is going to give me
money or this is going to give me
attention this is going to give oh I
can't wait to have a take on that.
>> That's exactly right. So but okay so my
response to that is so many things is
like oh he was being funny he was being
outrageous and I just move on with my
life. What I find very interesting is
the people who say, you know, oh, that
was a joke. Like when when Kill Tony,
you remember he told like the joke heard
around the world in Madison Square
Garden during the 2024 election.
>> I remember getting into an argument with
somebody about this and I may have even
been like in an interview, but
>> I don't remember. It could have been
private, too. Anyway, I I'm like, he
told a joke and then the person's
response is, well, it's not a very funny
joke. And my response to that is, you
know what happens when somebody tells me
a joke that's not funny? I don't laugh
and then I move on with my life. This
whole industry around outrage,
>> especially getting outraged around
humor, I think is actually really
hurting the country.
>> Well, in that case, first of all, I told
Tony a long time ago that joke was going
to get him stabbed. I really did. He
even jokes around about it on stage. He
talks about me telling him, "That's the
one, dude. That's the one's going to get
you stabbed." Any good joke at least is
going to run you some risk of getting
>> well certainly a a racial joke and that
joke being about Puerto Rico. By the
way, no one takes a joke better than
Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans are some of
the best people at telling jokes. Like
there it is a culture of joking and and
[ __ ] around with each other and
talking [ __ ] Like
>> they're great at it. So like
>> some Puerto Rican guys in the Marine
Corps, man. That's absolutely true.
>> They love him still, you know, like even
after that joke. What? So you you you
advised him not to tell that joke.
>> Well, I was kind of half joking. You
know, Tony that's what Tony does. You
know what? By I just said that's the one
that's going to get you stabbed. But I
mean that's what Tony does. Tony is like
the Josh Hokit of comedy. Like he but
very talented. You know, he's a really
good he's a roaster.
>> He's like roasting is is his specialty,
but it's also like he's trying to ruffle
people's feathers. That's what he wants
to do. He wants to piss people off.
That's he likes being a pro wrestling
heel. He always he's a huge pro
wrestling fan.
>> Well, so well he so Tony I like I'm a
huge fan of his comedy. I've only you
know met him a couple times. I don't
know him particularly well but he's
actually like you know more political I
would say than most comedians.
>> Do you think that's fair? Okay.
>> So um
>> well very supportive of like Trump
>> like he's on the Republican team. He's
on their 100%. That's because he's
experienced so many loony leftwing
people in California and that's why he
had to move.
>> Well, somebody sent me a clip. I think
it was Shane Gillis at a roast where the
the joke was they were roasting Tony and
they're like, Tony Hinchcliffe is the
only dude who would be excited if JD
Vance was here. [laughter]
And I was like, one, that's a very good
joke. And number two, I feel like I had
made it. Like there have been a few
moments where I feel like I've made it.
When
>> you're the vice president of the United
States, I think you made it.
>> When when South Park spoofed me, I felt
it more than when I got it sworn in as
vice president of the United States.
>> That's hilarious. That's very funny.
This episode is brought to you by the
farmer's dog. Here's a fun fact.
Research shows that dogs who maintain a
healthy weight can live up to two and a
half years longer on average than dogs
who are overweight. Isn't that wild and
also kind of obvious at the same time?
So, why is feeding vague scoops of
ultrarocessed kibble still the status
quo for most dog owners? Healthy
alternatives exist, and trust me, I
know. I buy one, the Farmer's Dog. I use
it for both my dogs. They love it. They
eat it up quick. It smells good to them.
It smells good to me. It's human grade
food. The Farmer's Dog makes fresh food
for dogs, and my dogs love it. Their
recipes are made with real meat and
fresh vegetables that are gently cooked
to retain vital nutrients. They also
portion out the meals to your dog's
nutritional needs, which helps avoid
overfeeding and makes weight management
easier. And isn't getting more time with
our four-legged best friends something
every dog owner wants? The answer to
that is yes, obviously. So try the
farmer's dog today and get 50% off your
first box of fresh, healthy food. Plus,
get free shipping. Just go to the
farmersdog.com/rogan.
This offer is for new customers only.
>> Yeah. Tony is uh I mean that's his style
like like he loves like being the heel.
>> Get a kick out of it. Oh yeah. Oh yeah.
He's one of the first people that moved
out here with me.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. I mean we've been here for six
years now.
>> Yeah. And every time we go back to
California, we're like, "We were right."
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> We were right. It's falling apart. It
keeps going further and further down the
toilet.
>> Well, how do how do you feel like Austin
is going? Cuz the criticism of Austin,
call it five or six years ago, is that
all the like it's a cool town. It's got
its own unique culture. It's Texas, but
it's also its own thing. But that all of
the blue sters moving in, we're going to
like totally change the politics and the
culture of Austin. I actually don't
think that's happened.
>> I think the blue sters that moved here
moved here because they recognized that
wherever they were living was not
tenable. Yeah, it was falling apart. And
all of these places like New York and
really California, like especially Los
Angeles and San Francisco, they're
falling apart.
>> And I have a bunch of friends that are
stuck there that can't move. Like maybe
they have family there or maybe they
have a business there. Y
>> and they [ __ ] hate it. And then I
have a bunch of people that are trying
to move but they can't sell their house.
>> Like it's nuts there, man. I don't think
people first of all you get gas lit by
Gavin Newsome. I mean he's just
gaslighting everybody about how well,
you know, oh the GDP of like the fifth
largest country in the world. That's
what California is.
>> It's like dude,
>> hey bro, it was like that before you
were the governor.
>> Yeah, exactly. Also, how much does a
U-Haul cost if you're leaving
California? And how much does it cost if
you're going in California? Because
that's the real measure of whether a
state's doing well.
>> Yeah. The state has more people moving
out than moving in. And that has never
happened before. Correct. California's
when I moved there in 1994 until I left,
it was always every year traffic got
worse. Every year more people moved
there. Every year. And
>> I loved it. I loved it. I loved it. From
the time I moved there, I was like,
"This place is great. It's warm all the
time. The weather's fantastic. There's
[clears throat] so much cool stuff to
do. The people are great.
>> Yeah.
>> And then politics ruined it.
>> That's right. So, my wife's from
Southern California, San Diego, and so
we spent a fair amount of time there.
And I I just, man, I still feel a
certain sense of like heartbreak over
LA. Oh,
>> because every time I'm in LA, you can
see why this was like the
quintessentially American city. The
architecture is beautiful. It's got its
own vibe going. Like you said, the
weather is amazing. And then you drive
through Skid Row and you're like, how
could any state or any city let this
happen?
>> Skidro is now 55 blocks.
It was 50 blocks just like a year or two
ago.
>> Okay. So my my first experience with
Skidro was so Usha used to work at this
like very fancy litigation firm in in
Southern California. Um you before she
was second lady, she was a corporate
litigator. So, there's a Christmas party
in downtown LA and you get these
instructions from her firm and they're
like this really convoluted way of this
is how you have to get to this Christmas
party. And I'm like, why do I have to
follow these direct directions? Why
don't I just put it in Google Maps,
right? This is like five or six, seven
years ago. So, we realized that the
reason why they gave you these
convoluted directions was so that you
could avoid Skid Row at night. And so
you get to this party, you drive through
Skidro if you follow Google Maps's
directions. You get there and it's like
this beautiful facility with like fancy
food and fancy wine and then there are
armed guards outside of it and these
gigantic walls. And I realized when I
was there, you know what this reminds me
of? This reminds me of going to the US
embassy in Porta Prince, Haiti. like
super security, crazy wealth and
privilege and status on the inside and
squalor and misery on the outside. Like
it's the first time I'd ever thought
America, like this part of America is
actually more like a third world country
than anything that I thought we'd ever
become.
>> Let me ask you this.
>> Yeah.
>> Why is it that large population centers
like places like Los Angeles and New
York are almost always run by the
Democrats? Yeah.
>> Like what is it about? First of all,
what happened with the last election in
Los Angeles, the just the primary I I
think was so super sus. And here's why
it's super sus.
>> Not just super sus that Spencer Platt,
Spencer Pratt, who was in second place,
got overtaken by Nithia Ramen in the
mailin ballots, but that the mail-in
ballots also passed a tax hike. The
people voted to pay more taxes.
>> Yep.
>> In a state where you have the highest
taxes.
>> That's right.
>> They're like, "We don't pay enough."
[laughter]
>> That is insane. And then when you have
direct evidence that they were
recruiting homeless people.
>> That's right.
>> And they were getting homeless people
and giving them cigarettes and cash.
There's evidence of this. To use their
their address and mail in ballots.
>> Yeah. I would have I wouldn't be the
Californian Joe who wakes up in the
morning and says, "You know what? I'm
going to go and vote for higher taxes. I
don't I don't pay enough taxes.
>> I I feel like we could fix this if I
just%
more taxes." The crazy thing about it,
too, is it's that okay, so after the
initial ballots all came in, it was
Karen Bass was number one, Spencer Pratt
was right right behind her, and then
number three, whatever this woman Ramen.
Okay. So, you would expect the mail and
ballots to be more or less like the
original ballots in terms of one, two,
and three. I'm not saying Spencer's
going to win the mail and ballots, but
it just so happened that the third place
person in relative terms did a lot
better than the first and second place
person
such that the Republican was actually
kicked out of the race so that there's
not actually a real election in
California. That to me was the crazy
part. It's like you were designing the
vote share in order to kick Pratt out
and put the third person into second
place. That to me is like very very
bizarre cuz what is the theory of the
mail and vote that is somehow like so
much more pro- Nithia relative to Karen
Bass?
>> Makes no sense.
>> Makes no sense.
>> Makes no sense. Why would it be? Why why
would it be? I mean Karen Karen Bass was
ahead by every metric.
>> Yeah. But I mean Okay. So you ask a
question. Why do all these blue states
or why do all these big cities
population centers end up becoming um
end up becoming blue? And I think it's
like very complicated, right? So, one
thing and you said this a few months ago
and like when you said it, I was like
kind of annoyed by it, but then I like
thought there's there's like an element
of truth to it, which is that
Republicans still fundamentally have a
cool problem, right? There's something
more charismatic, more cool about the
Democrats as opposed to the right.
>> And so you you said something about
>> there are too many dorks or something on
the right.
>> There's a lot of dorks,
>> you know. Fair. I'd say there's a lot of
dorks on the left.
>> There's a lot of dorks on the left, too.
It's a different kind of dork.
>> It's a different kind of dork. But the
the point is that there's something, you
know, like, okay, if you're a pop star,
you're a rock star, you're an actor,
you're in all these cultural centers,
you're more likely to be left than
right. And so I think that a lot of
young people who are attracted to these
population centers, they sort of move
along with the prevailing culture. I
think that's that's one thing that's
going on. I think a second thing that's
going on is the people who are sort of
attracted to a certain kind of right of
center politics. They want the suburbs.
They want the single family home. They
kind of want to be left alone. They
don't want sort of to be able to hear
what their neighbors are doing. So I
think a little bit of it's just cultural
self-segregation.
And that's meant that a lot of these
population centers have gone blue. But
it's very complicated. I've thought
about this a lot. And I also just man I
like I'm not one of these people who
says we should just abandon California
to the Democrats. Like let them deal
with their own problems. I think
California is like a quintessential part
of the American dream. Like if you just
abandon California, you've like lost
something very core to American culture.
And I I just I don't want to give up on
it. Like I'm not saying we're going to
win California in my lifetime
necessarily, but I don't like the idea
of giving up on it. Well, it's not just
giving up on I mean, giving up on it
would be terrible. It's an awesome
state. The the real problem is it's
deeply corrupt.
>> I mean, deeply deeply corrupt. And what
they're trying to do is make it
impossible for the other side to win.
Yeah.
>> And there should be laws against that.
First of all, the idea of mail-in
ballots for anybody other than people
who are invalids who can't live their
homes or military or people that for
some reason they're serving overseas,
they're doing something overseas,
>> it should not be legal, right?
>> And the fact that it became ubiquitous
during co is a giant problem.
>> Yeah. So, this raises one of my total
segue here, side point, but so if you
remember in the aftermath of the 2020
election where there was all this like
debate about was the election stolen,
was the election not stolen, all the
litigation that moved through,
>> there was a case in Pennsylvania that
like didn't get very much attention. And
I'm going to butcher it a little bit,
but basically it was a guy in a rural
area of Pennsylvania saying, "You're
underounting my vote because we didn't
have the opportunity to do the mail-in
ballots like they did in Philadelphia
and Pittsburgh." And like the argument
was a kind of disparit impact, right?
The cities jinned up all the mail and
balloting and the ballot harvesting. You
didn't do that in the country and that
hurt sort of our representation. So they
take this case to the Pennsylvania
courts. And what's crazy is the
Pennsylvania courts basically say,
you're making kind of a good point here.
Like the ballot harvesting did affect
Republicans in a more negative way. It
did mean that certain people in the more
rural parts of the state were
underrepresented. But then the court
conclusion was this is not a problem a
court can fix. Like that's a political
problem. Change your, you know, local
elections leaders, change your laws.
Like that's not a remedy that the court
has to fix. And so everybody saw that
case and they're like, "Oh, the judge
rules against Donald Trump, rules
against Republicans for saying that
there was something illegitimate." But
no, actually the judge kind of said,
"There is something kind of fishy here.
We're just the wrong venue to fix it."
>> Well, it it's just very disheartening
that you you have to consider the fact
that it's really possible that the
elections get stolen. And the California
one was a big one for me. And why not
just have mail in or why not just have
voter ID?
>> Yeah, you actually that's insane. Not
only did they not have voter ID, you
can't show your ID. You're not allowed
to show your ID.
>> You can in fact be like prosecuted if
you try to force somebody to show their
ID,
>> which is that seems like you want people
to cheat.
>> Exactly. [laughter]
>> And is this from the same people that
were saying you have to have an ID that
shows you've been vaccinated just four
years ago to go to grocery shopping or
to go to restaurant? Yeah. No, it's it's
definitely that's the part about it that
I think makes most people of my
political persuasion skeptical of what
the Democrats are doing. Like if you
don't want to cheat in the election,
then just make everybody actually show
an ID. What another thing people don't
realize is I didn't realize this until a
couple years ago, the voter ID solves a
lot of the mail-in ballot problem
because if you have to show an ID in
order to get a mail and ballot in order
to actually, you know, confirm that
there's a real identification attached
to that vote, that solves a big chunk of
the problem.
>> It's just logical. Like [laughter] I
don't I'm not
I'm not skeptical. I'm accusing them. I
think they stole the election.
>> Yes. And I'm I'm I think it's common and
I you know this idea that elections
can't be stolen. I always say to people,
okay, do you think that the amount of
election fraud is 0%.
>> No one thinks that.
>> Yeah.
>> No one thinks it's zero. There's always
some overzealous person that works
somewhere that's doing something.
There's always crazy people. They're
like, "Blue no matter who, we got to win
or red no matter what." There's always
people right and left that are going to
try to rig the election because they
think it's imperative our n like look we
we saw there was people like Oprah
Winfrey was saying it like if we don't
win this election we you may never vote
again like what the [ __ ] are you talking
about [laughter] like why what who's
going to tolerate that left or right
that's crazy right
>> but that attitude allows people to
justify cheating
>> correct
>> and I think they cheat and I I think
they've been doing it forever and I
don't think there's any other reason why
you would have no voter ID? And they try
to say, "Oh, it's racist to have voter
ID." Like, what are you talking about?
Do you think other races are incapable
of going to the DMV? That's insane.
>> It's it's that's racist.
>> It's actually super racist. That's
really racist.
>> The implication of their argument is
literally like blacks and Hispanics
cannot go to the DMV to get an ID. By
the way, if you look at the polling,
black Americans are as pro- voter ID.
Even though they you most black
Americans vote Democrat, they're still
pro- voter ID as much as white Americans
is. Most Americans are voter. They want
voter ID except for operatives.
>> So I'll offer on the Joe Rogan podcast
this deal as vice president of these
United States that if Democrats really
don't think that there's any cheating,
give us voter ID.
>> I just don't know.
>> Give us voter ID and we'll stop talking.
>> Why is that not a federal thing?
>> We are trying to make it a federal
thing. So, we are right now trying to
pass the Save America Act. One of its
main provisions is a requirement that
you do voter ID. And we actually have, I
think, a majority of the Senate that
would support it. But this is just weird
Senate procedural [ __ ] There is a
subsegment of people who want voter ID,
but won't blow up the filibuster in
order to achieve it. And so they're so
married to these oldw world Senate
procedures that they're going to make it
impossible for us to pass Save America.
Now we we are for what it's worth trying
to fix that and trying to address these
like weird procedural archaic things.
It's insane though. Like if you ever
Okay,
>> I'm sure you hear people talk about the
filibuster all the time. I don't want to
go too far down this rabbit hole.
>> Here's what the filibuster is. It is a
pure Senate rule. It is a creation of
the Senate procedures which basically
says that anything that has to do with
the budget is a 50 vote threshold and
anything that everything else
non-budgetary is a 60 vote threshold.
Now, as you can imagine, there's some
gray area on things that maybe are count
as budget issues and should be 50 or are
not budget issues and count at 60. So
what we have tried to persuade the
Senate to do is to treat the voter ID as
something that can fall within the 50
vote threshold. And there is no law,
there's no provision in the
Constitution. It is legitimately that
there are senators who are so attached
to the idea that budget is 50,
non-budget is 60 that they're quite
literally willing to prevent voter ID in
America.
>> God,
it's nuts, dude. It's it's so crazy
>> and it's also like the idea that
>> somehow or like Kathy Hol had the
craziest take on it. Did you
>> She often does.
>> Did you see her take on it?
>> I have not.
>> She was talking about black people in
inner cities not even knowing what a
computer is.
>> Did you ever see that?
>> No, I didn't see that.
>> Oh my god, it was so crazy. And then
this one comedian, uh, this black
comedian did this hilarious video where
he was like circling around a computer,
staring at it, like touching it like he
didn't know what it was. [laughter]
>> It's just like, what are you talking
about? Everyone has a phone. That's a
computer.
>> So many of these Democratic talking
points presume that their own voters are
actual idiots.
>> That's actually there there's a big
difference between, you know,
Republicans, we sort of presume that our
voters are adults. And you don't see
that with a I'm not saying every
Democrat, of course, I don't want to
cast too broad of a brush here, but it's
it's like, you know, Gavin Newsome did
this speech a few months ago. The
president, I think it's the funniest
thing ever because he's like speaking to
a group of black leaders and black
businessmen, but it's like an audience
that is 95% black. And they're asking
him about his dyslexia and his struggle
with education. And he basically says,
"Yeah, you know, um, I'm not very smart
like a lot of you." And it's like,
>> I'm like you. I can't read. Can't even
read.
Well, there's a ton of interviews where
he's [laughter] talking about all the
books he reads. Like, he's so full of
[ __ ] He's
>> He's full of [ __ ] but it's
>> admirably full of [ __ ] [laughter]
>> It's It's I admire the the the [ __ ]
the sheer tenacity that he has in being
full of [ __ ]
>> I I It really is amazing. But it it
speaks to the incentives of there's kind
of like look, there's a real populism
that I'm very much a fan of because I
think you should be responsive to
people, but there's like a faux populism
of the way that I'm going to appeal to
people is by assuming that they're
idiots and acting like they're idiots.
Yeah.
>> And then but but if you if you're
committed enough to that bit, eventually
it kind of leaks out what you're doing.
>> And I think that's that was sort of what
Gavin did there is he told on himself a
bit. [laughter]
>> Yeah. Well, it was just it's just he's
bizarre.
>> I will say I bizarre.
>> So, I've only met Gavin I think I've
only met him one time in my life and it
was it's such a crazy experience. So,
the debate between Biden and Trump
during the 2024 cycle and I'm there I'm
actually doing an interview for a
documentary when the debate starts and
there's this clip of me. The debate
starts. I'm in the middle of this
interview. There's a big screen behind
me as I'm talking to the camera, which
is here, and I kind of freeze and I look
back at the the the TV and I'm like, "Oh
my god, like this is actually happening.
Biden is imploding." Because if you
remember, it was obvious from the
get-go. So, I go to the spin room
afterwards and that's where, you know,
all these reporters and all the
surrogates of the candidates, this is
before I was the VP nominee and I'm just
like, you know, talking about how great
the president did, how bad President
Biden did. Okay, I see Gavin Newsome
there and he literally looks like he's
seen a ghost. Like I've I've never seen
a person who, as good of a bullshitter
as he is, who realized there was no
selling that performance. Like, but can
you imagine like try to put yourself in
the perspective of a human being? I
always try to, you know, be empathetic
where Joe Biden has just had that debate
and you have to go on CNN to talk about
how great of a job Joe Biden did. Well,
my favorite is Joe Scarboro because Joe
Scarro before it was like, you know, I'm
gonna say something and f you if you
can't take it. This is the sharpest
Biden we've ever seen. Have you ever
seen that?
>> No, I haven't.
>> Oh, it's amazing. And then after the
debate, he's like, "We got to get rid of
him. He's [laughter] got to go. He's got
to go, hey, hey, hey, what what what did
you say? You just said a couple of
months ago, this is the best Biden
ever."
>> That's wild. Well, it's like I wonder
what was going on with that cuz like the
debates were earlier than they've ever
been before and it seemed to me it's
like there was a concerted effort to
hide what was wrong with him.
>> 100%
>> 100%. Everybody was bullshitting.
Everybody was gaslighting us. We all saw
it. I I remember a friend of mine who's
>> super progressive, super liberal. You
know [snorts] what I I talked about on
our podcast. I'm like, "This is crazy.
even if he wins, he's not going to be
the guy that's the president. You're
going to have his cabinet that are
running everything. Turned out I was
right.
>> They were saying, "Oh, don't you
understand that he has a stutter?"
>> And I said, "Where the [ __ ] was that
stutter in the 1990s?" Like that's
crazy. [laughter] Like a stutter that
only shows up when you're 80. That
doesn't make any sense.
>> Like this is a lie. You're lying. He's
had two brain surgeries like where they
have to take the top of your head off.
Literally, they have to take you like a
cap. They
>> Wait, Biden had two brain surgeries?
>> Oh, yeah.
>> How did I not know this?
>> You didn't know this?
>> I didn't know that he had two brain
surgeries.
>> He had two brain surgeries. Jimmy,
please look this up. Make sure that I'm
right. I'm 99% sure I'm right. But I
know he had
a refund afterwards.
>> Well, it kept [laughter] him alive. It
kept him alive. I mean, he here Biden
has not undergone recent brain surgery.
He underwent two successful lifesaving
>> Oh wow.
>> brain surgeries to repair two inter
incraanial aneurysms in 1988.
>> Know this?
>> Yeah,
>> that's pretty crazy.
>> His medical professionals have stated
that he made a full recovery and
suffered no lasting brain damage or
cognitive impairment from these
procedures. Oh, it's from the Washington
Post, so you know it's accurate and
definitely not biased at all. And these
medical professionals, were those the
same people that said that the COVID
vaccine is safe and effective? Um, it's
it's we we live in a wonderful time for
[ __ ] It's like because they just
[ __ ] you right to your face. Like he
had two brain surgeries, like major
brain surgeries, cuz he's having
aneurisms.
>> I don't care who you are, that's
probably going to do some damage.
>> It's going to leave some aneurisms, a
real problem. It's a real thing. Your
brain
people die from aneurysms all the time.
See, that's the crazy thing is I never
even knew about that.
>> How did you not know about that? That's
nuts. I knew about it. Well, it speaks
to how constrained our media environment
is that even I had never heard that,
>> right? It was not a part of the
narrative. Certainly not from the
Democrats, but yeah, he's it was clearly
I just don't understand why they ran him
in the first place.
>> The the whole thing made no sense. And
then to have no primary and just stick
Kla in there and then all a sudden
pretend that she's the best thing ever.
And like this idea, like complete flip
of her being the least popular vice
president ever, always sticking her foot
in her mouth, always saying crazy [ __ ]
How dare we say Merry Christmas? You
remember that one?
>> Like what the [ __ ] is What are you
saying? Like joy is bad. Merry Christmas
is bad.
>> Legitimately when the campaign
consultants told me, "Hey, we're going
to hit this line because Kla Harris came
out in favor of taxpayerf funed sex
changes for illegal aliens. And
[laughter] I and I remember thinking to
myself, come on, you guys. Like, she
didn't really say that. It's taken out
of context. And then I go and look at
it. I'm like, holy [ __ ] she actually
said that. And she was she really was
like the very worst version of what the
Democrats were producing in 2020. The
thing is, it was they were all doing it
because that was the incentives of the
party. Like if you remember that debate
where it was do you want taxpayer funded
Medicare for illegal aliens which like
Medicare is the program to provide
health care to the elderly that people
pay into for like you know your entire
working life. You see your little
Medicare tax statement and the idea that
we were going to give taxpayer funded
healthcare to illegal aliens. It was
just insane. It was a 9010 issue but
their party in 2020 got kind of taken
over by the radicals. And I I think
actually maybe you're seeing a little
bit of that happening right now where it
seems like the radical organizations,
the nonprofits, the donors are pushing
the party in a direction that most of
the voters haven't gone in. Like you ask
why Joe Biden was the nominee and I'll
I'll say something in defense of Joe
Biden. So like was he the most effective
politician? No. Had he had two brain
surgeries? Yes. And clearly had shown
the negative signs of aging. But he was
kind of the only candidate, if you go
back to 2020, who could hold together
like the reasonable middle class black
American in the Atlanta suburbs with
whatever is going on on the far left of
the Democrat party. And I think this is
sort of the issue their party has. I
mean, our like to be candid, our party
has its own coalition problems. And it's
it's always tough in a two-party system
to hold everybody together. Like I think
about this a lot. I think it's really
tough on the Democrats because the core
of their party, like the most important
voting block in the Democratic party is
middle-class black Americans, socially
moderate to even socially conservative,
maybe a little bit more economically
populist on certain business and tax
issues. You know, they don't want to
give tax breaks to major corporations.
They also don't want to trans the kids.
That's the base of their party. But then
you've also got like the crazy people
and you have to kind of hold that
together. I think the argument for Biden
was he was one of the only people who
could hold that together even though he
was an awful politician in his own right
even before he was like old.
>> He was he was Obama's vice president.
>> Exactly.
>> And you know he's established he's a
known name and for the people that were
kind of casuals who weren't really
paying attention to politics like he's a
proven commodity.
>> That's right. He doesn't read as a crazy
person to the general electorate
>> even though you know
>> I got hairy legs [laughter]
>> when he tells stories like I tell you
about cord pop. Like what
>> the [ __ ] is going on?
>> The thing I couldn't get over Biden is
is just bad staff work, man. The way
that he ate ice cream. I mean, it's
like, you know, we could bring some of
this stuff up, but it's like they would
get him eating ice cream in the most
ridiculous suggestive way imaginable.
>> I never even paid attention.
>> Oh my god. Like such bad optics. Okay.
So, there's there's a clip I want to say
from the 2016
um campaign where somebody is
campaigning in Iowa and like it's the
Iowa State Fair is like one of the main
things you go to when when you're
running for president and they give
somebody a corn dog and somebody eats
the corn dog and it becomes like a major
news cycle for a long time and I I will
never forget in 2024 [laughter] in 2020.
>> That's how immature we are.
>> I know. I know. You got to have a little
fun sometimes though. But in 2024,
somebody is holding up a sign at the
Iowa State Fair at I think it may have
been Vakes, one of Aakes's event, Vake
Rama Swami's events, and the sign says,
"Eat the corn dogs, you coward." And
it's [laughter] one of the best the best
political signs I've ever seen.
>> That's funny. That's funny. Yeah. You
You'd have to be a very manly man to be
able to eat a confidently confidently
eat a corn dog.
>> I don't know that I can do it, Joe.
>> I eat them. They're good.
>> Yeah, but they taste good. Are you I
love corn dogs. I've been photographed.
You've been photographed eating a corn
dog.
>> I'm sure someone has.
>> One of [laughter]
>> I've eaten corn dogs. The odds are
>> much more interesting life than I've
led. I I try I try to eat my corn dogs.
That's between that's between me and my
uh my kitchen.
>> I'm not scared to eat a corn dog.
[laughter] I just think it's funny that
people just they're so afraid of being
[snorts]
>> anything that looks like a dick.
>> You can't bananas, corn dogs.
>> You got to be [laughter]
you got to be careful when you're
politics. This is an optics based
business here.
>> What are those popsicles? The ones that
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I get it. I mean, but it's just
like that's how crazy we are. That
that's what weirds people out. The way
someone eats a hot dog.
>> That's
>> like Okay.
>> Well, that's that's where we are, man.
>> Yeah.
>> I
>> It's the the difference between, you
know, the crazies and the the the real
reasonable Democrats is so stark to me.
I did I and it's also with the right.
It's like we're always the parties are
always defined by the worst examples of
the right. That's right. You know. Yeah.
Or or of the left, you know, whatever it
is, whether it's uh Patriot Front or
whether it's uh Antifa.
>> Okay. So, who do you think is the worst
example of our side? Like who who do you
read about on our side and your reaction
is, "Holy shit." And don't say JD Vance.
This is going to be a very awkward
interview.
>> Um
>> I'm screwed with you. Well, the the
people that you know, one of the thing I
had James Tarico on the podcast and one
of the things that I think he has a
really good point about even though I
know you're Catholic and you're very
religious, putting the Ten Commandments
in schools um I don't think is the right
way to do. And this is a guy Terrico who
was in seminary and is very Christian.
Mhm.
>> He just thinks that even though he
believes in the Ten Commandments, if
you're just only representing the
Christian faith in these schools, you're
forcing your religion into other
people's lives and that this is going to
push people away from Christianity
rather than encourage them to uh pursue
it.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think you'd never want
to force things on people. And I I do I
think one of the core Christian
contributions to Western civilization is
the idea of freedom of religion. It's
actually very much a Christian idea
because you recognize the dignity of
each individual. And part of recognizing
that dignity is that each person has to
find their own pathway to God. You can't
force this on anybody. I don't think
putting the Ten Commandments up in
school is like forcing things on
anybody.
>> But it's public schools. So I mean, if
you're going to do that, why not put
Buddhist scripture? Why not put, you
know, you Muslims stuff? You could you
could you could make an argument why you
should have a bunch of different
religious tenants in schools.
>> I think in the Supreme Court there
actually are a lot of different sort of
historical, cultural, legal documents
that are up there. And I I want to say
that Moses coming down with a tablet is
one of them, but I I think there
actually are other cultural and maybe
even other religious elements of this
like where you recognize that a big part
of sort of the lawgiving tradition in
Western civilization is the um is some
of these religious texts, not
exclusively Christian religious texts.
Obviously some Jewish there's like a an
important contribution from the Muslim
world in this. So I I don't I I guess I
don't think of it as exclusionary while
also recognizing that, you know, America
is a society. Our founders were people
who were very much influenced even if
they weren't Christians, a lot of them
of course were, but were very influenced
by Christian culture and articulating
American law. So my argument would be
even if you're not a Christian, like
does seeing the Ten Commandments,
let me put it a slightly different way.
Does seeing the Ten Commandments force
religion on a non-Christian child? I
mean, my argument would be no. And I'd
illustrate this by saying, well, there
are all of these ways in which you
actually could try to force religion on
a child, right? Well, it's not the worst
way to force religion on a child, but to
have it and not represent any other rel.
This is Texas, by the way. Sure. So what
he's talking about was that there's
these Christian nationalists, these
these guys that are very wealthy that
are trying to fund Christian schools and
trying to defund public schools or any
other kind of religious school and what
they want to do and and they passed this
to get the Ten Commandments in all
public school classes. and he's
fundamentally opposed to that as a
Christian because he thinks it's going
to force people to have this in their
class and it's gonna push people away
from Christianity.
>> I mean, I understand the argument. I
just don't see it that way. I mean, I I
I guess if if I I I hear you, but if I'm
a non-religious student and I'm sitting
in there and I see the Ten Commandments,
at the very least, I think I can
appreciate it. I mean I you know what I
thought about this one sort of
>> what if you're a Hindu what if you're a
Muslim and you know and you are seeing
that represented but not your faith.
Well, it's a public school. F
>> first of all, I think that you you I
mean I I'm pretty sure Muslims I'm not
hardly an expert on Islam, but I I think
all of the Abrahamic faiths recognize
the Ten Commandments as like a
significant thing, but I think if I was
a Hindu looking at the Ten Commandments,
I mean, again, it's hard for me to say
this right from my my perspective, but I
certainly went through an atheist phase
in my in my youth. And what I would see
that as as a non-religious person or a
different religion is I would say this
is like an important cultural element of
the western civilization which is the
foundation of the classroom that I'm
sitting in. And this idea that the law
comes in is sort of above any man even
if you don't believe in God yourself. I
think that's like an important concept.
I mean, if you look at the Ten
Commandments, probably eight of them are
something that I would hope that
everybody would agree with, even if
they're that not themselves religious.
>> So, I I guess here's my my view on it.
Like, I would not be offended if I sat
in a classroom as a Christian or if my
kids sat in a classroom as a Christian
and saw, you know, a religious text that
wasn't Christian on on the wall. I would
encourage them to see that. No, I'd
encourage them to see that as a learning
experience to try to understand.
>> What if it was from the Quran? What do a
bunch of
>> I guess it depends on what it was,
right? If it's if it's like something
crazy, but but no, I mean, if if if it's
if it's something that is like
culturally interesting, I I guess I
don't I don't have a problem with my kid
reading.
>> The problem is it's mandated. Like if
you have a classroom and the teacher is
Christian and the teacher wants to have
it in their classroom, maybe that's one
thing. But if you're mandating that
you're going to have the Ten
Commandments in classrooms, that's a
different thing because now you're
you're pushing Christianity on kids. And
this is Terico's position. And as a
Christian, he's saying I think this is
going to push children away from
Christianity.
>> So I again I I I understand what he's
saying. I just I think that part of
living in a society where you have
different people of different
perspectives, but you do have I mean
Christianity is the majority religion of
the United States. It is the religion
that was extraordinary influential to
our founding to the constitutional
principles. Again, freedom of religion
is itself not really a liberal concept.
It was originally derived um from from
from a Christian idea about free will
and the dignity of the person. I think
part of that is that you accept that
you're going to have exposure to
different things. And if a if a state
legislator in a majority Christian state
wants, it's not like they're putting the
Ten Commandments in front of these kids
and saying, "You have to read this and,
you know, write it 500 times a day."
They're exposing kids to something. And
I'm comfortable with kids being exposed
to a lot of different things. I think
that's part of living in a society where
there's a free exchange of ideas. And
what I what I worry about with
Tallerico's sort of perspective here is
is again I'm not saying that I I don't
want kids to be exposed to anything that
is outside of the Christian cannon. Like
I I I actually want my kids exposed to
things. I I write about this in the book
that I think it's important to have a
grounded enough faith that you can
engage with a lot of different ideas and
still ultimately you know sort of hold
on to your to your Christian faith. But
isn't part of just living in a like
pluralistic democracy that people are
going to be exposed to different things?
And you know, I I would kind of put it
on Tallerico in a slightly different way
that for a long time in this country,
there were actually Supreme Court
rulings that said that you cannot pray
in a school, even a a student
organization led by the students, or
that you cannot put the Ten Commandments
up, even a teacher who chose to do it in
their own classroom. And so I think
you're always kind of trying to strike
this balance, you know, given that we
have the first amendment in this country
between allowing the practice of
religious faith in public spaces and
possibly forcing religion on other
people. I think you have to strike that
balance the right way. I guess I just
say is the if the Ten Commandments being
in a classroom is the thing that you
think is forcing religion on somebody,
was he equally offended when the Ten
Commandments were like quite literally
prohibited from being listed in
building?
>> I don't know if he was offended by that
or if he was opposed to that. But the
idea of being exposed to it is one
thing. It being mandatory is another.
And to mandate that in classrooms is a
different thing because you're promoting
clearly promoting Christianity. And his
position is that promoting Christianity
in that way is going to have an opposite
effect on children. You're pushing it on
them instead. You're not just exposing
it to them. You're pushing it on them.
And especially if you're pushing it on
children who come from a household that
has a different faith. I guess I just
think the balance in our country the
last 30 40 years has actually been much
more in the other direction which is
that we try to completely remove
religion from the public square and I
think that's that's that poses its own
problems because you know people
practice their faith in all kinds of
ways. We think that that's the
responsibility of churches and and
synagogues and where that like if you
want and and in the community if you
want to promote religion promote it that
way. But promoting in public schools
should be just educational. And if
you're in a religious class and a a
class is teaching about religion, that's
a different story.
>> Well, you're right. It's certainly the
responsibility of churches and
synagogues and mosques and so forth. But
I also think that, you know, the the the
late Supreme Court Chief Justice William
Ranquist sort of said this that if your
approach to religion in public life
always and everywhere is to push it out
of the public square, then you're
actually embracing a religion of your
own in the public square, which is
secularism. You're just taking one
religion and replacing it with
secularism. And I guess what I'm saying
is I'm kind of comfortable with people
of different faiths sharing the public
square together. But part of that is
that if if I'm in a 95% Christian
community and my local city council
wants to put up a nativity display on
on, you know, Christmas Eve, I'm okay
with that. And that was actually like
for a long time in our country actually
prohibited. Yeah.
>> And so what what I think is that we got
we we we sort of put ourselves in this
frame in this country where we said
every public display of religion is
somehow illegitimate. But I I I mean I
don't know. I I try to live my faith in
a way that's consistent across different
spheres of my life. You know, I don't
preach to people. I don't like to walk
into the White House tell my employees,
you know, you need to be you need to
follow Jesus as your Lord and Savior. I
just try to live my life in a way that
hopefully makes people a little curious
about what you know, what motivates me
and what inspires me. But I also don't
think that the expectation should be
that we tell religious people they're
not allowed to be religious in the
public square because I think that's
what we've done over the last 30 or 40
years. I guess, you know, we can agree
to disagree. I see the Texas thing as an
an attempt to correct that. This episode
is brought to you by Fox Nation. Real
American freestyle wrestling is
exclusively on Fox Nation. Every month
you get every feud, every match, and
every belt. And if you're a fan of MMA,
you don't want to miss it because RAF is
featuring some of the biggest UFC
fighters and putting them against the
best wrestlers in the world. On July
18th, RAF11 turns up the heat when Ben
Ascrin returns to the mat to take on
former UFC champion Bal Muhammad. Then
two undefeated RAF stars finally face
off when Arman Sarukian and Kobby
Coington settle their score in the main
event. No cages, no gloves, no excuses.
RAF11,
live from Milwaukee, Saturday, July
18th, streaming exclusively on Fox
Nation. Go to foxnation.com and sign up
today. Well, I think living by example
is probably the best promotion of any
good way to live your life, whether it's
Christianity or any other religion. I
think that's definitely the way to do
it. But the the point is that this is
being promoted by very wealthy people
who are Christian nationalists who who
want this to be uh they want it to what
is going on here, Jimmy? What you got?
Bible stories become required reading in
Texas public schools. Yeah. See? Well,
now that's a you're taking it to another
level. So, this is June 26. This is very
recently.
Um
that is that kind of thinking and
that kind of mindset is uh what bothers
me the most about some Republicans.
>> I see what you mean. Um, and then
there's the there's people that again
they live their life in a very beautiful
way and they follow the teachings of
Jesus Christ and they're very admirable
and I think that's very attractive and
it makes people very curious about that
religion. I think that brings people to
Christ and I think it brings people to
religion.
>> Sure. But then there's people like, did
you read that report uh that came from
at the start of the Iran war where uh
there was a guy who was an officer uh
non-commissioned officer who was uh at a
a briefing and this guy came in and was
explaining to them that they didn't need
to be afraid because this war was
important because Trump had been
anointed by Jesus Christ to bring about
his return. And the way they were going
to Jesus is going to return is by
bombing Iran. [laughter]
>> I did not see that report.
>> That sounds pretty far out there to me.
>> This is the kind of right-wing I see
>> thinking. So here it is. Military
commander tells troops bombing Iran is
part of God's divine plan. So, we
started getting calls in the wee hours
of Saturday morning from people saying
their commanders were just jubilant
about this, trying to tell people,
"Don't worry, it's all part of God's
plan. Uh, they promised a 200 mile long
river that is 4 and 1/2 ft deep, filled
with nothing but the blood that their
weaponized version of Jesus will spill
at the battle of Armageddon." Weinstein
said, u what what was the one uh there
was a there was an article where the guy
was explaining the actual quotes that
the the one uh officer was telling him
>> the one commander.
Uh yeah, but it's not that there was is
very specific. He was it was very
specific what he said.
Um, I mean, for what it's worth, my my
attitude on this stuff is I mean, first
of all, as a Christian, you sort of
believe that everything is is part of
God's plan, even things that are
ultimately very terrible. I mean, you
kind of have to make
>> it. Let me let me read the quote. He
urged us to tell our troops that this
was all part of God's divine plan. And
he specifically referenced numerous
citations out of the book of Revelations
referring to Armageddon and the imminent
return of Jesus Christ. He said that
President Trump had been anointed by
Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran
to cause Armageddon and mark his return
to Earth.
>> Okay.
>> If I'm in that meeting, I'm like, "Hit
[laughter] the brakes.
Hit the brakes." What?
>> Well, that's that's where you need some
of the psychedelics we talked about at
the last Joe Rogan JD Vance
conversation. [laughter]
>> That would definitely help.
>> I mean, my my response first of all,
like obviously, do I endorse that? No.
Do I think that it's important that
people reign it in a little bit? Because
I'm sure you're right. There were a lot
of troops there, probably a lot of
Christian troops there who were like,
uh, I'm not sure this is exactly right.
Right.
>> But the the important point is I think
it's important as a Christian leader, as
Christians, period. One of the things we
have to do is just have humility in the
face of of God's plan. There's a lot
that we don't understand. There's a lot
that we don't get. And I think
especially on matters of war and peace,
the approach that I try to take is you
try to make the best decisions that you
can. You hope that you're on God's side.
You don't assume that God has taken your
side. That's a that's a very famous
Abraham Lincoln quote. And that's the
attitude that I take. So for that, what
I, you know, what I would encourage that
NCO to say is, you know what, God is in
control. We don't know what's going to
happen, but let's pray and try to do as
good of a job as we can trusting in God.
If I was speaking to a group of
Christian troops, that's what I would
say.
>> But you're speaking to a group of
troops. You don't know if they're
Christian. You don't know. I mean,
you're essentially letting these people
know that you believe that Trump was
anointed by Jesus to bomb Iran so that
Jesus can come back to Earth.
>> Come back in a firearm.
>> I'd be like, "Can I get the [ __ ] out of
here?"
>> No, I hear you, man. I hear you. Look,
yes. And uh I I uh that's that is the
first that I have ever heard of this
particular story. How have you not heard
of this and Biden's two brain surgeries?
>> Apparently, I live in a bunker, man.
[laughter]
>> How do you not know about these things?
>> Wild. I Okay, here's the other thing
I'll say is is
having heard about this for the first
time just now. To your point about the
media,
>> I do think it's possible, let's be
honest, that whatever that dude said,
maybe it was good, maybe it was bad, has
been misreported by the press. So, I
always have a filter on this stuff. Like
I don't automatically assume.
>> It's also possible that this is the
other thing. He said the commander
supposedly had a big grin on his face
when he said all this, which made his
message seem even more crazy.
>> And I think that's again
>> I don't think anybody should have um
war is sometimes necessary, but it's
never a good thing. And that I think
that's like a fundamental Christian
principle is there are just wars, there
are necessary wars, but war is always
something that you try to avoid,
>> right? But saying that this is what's
being referenced in the book of
Revelation,
>> dude. I think that's I think that is
nuts. I also don't know that that, you
know, I want to be conf I want to
confirm that it's a person actually said
that before teeing off on it because
what that sounds to me is like somebody
butchering or misrepresenting something
that you know somebody that I know might
have said
>> quite possible. So you got to be
careful. Also quite possible that you
got a really looney guy who is a
Christian nationalist who is a commander
and who is in this position where he's
actually excited because he does think
that this is a holy [laughter] war and
this is going to bring back Jesus.
>> Well, it's certainly possible. I mean,
America's got 330 million people and
we've got a lot of people who believe in
a lot of things. But I can assure you
that we don't encourage people to talk
like that. And again, all I can do as a
Christian leader, I'll look into that
story certainly, but all I can do as a
Christian leader is talk about how I
think about questions of war and peace,
which is we try to do the right thing.
We try to figure out what it is that is
consistent with Christ's moral teaching
and we try to, you know, comport our
foreign policy with the cause of
justice. And that's what we try to do,
recognizing it's always going to be
imperfect. But I don't think that we
should ever have an attitude towards war
like this is a this is a great thing.
I'm going to grin and smile about that.
All I'm saying is I'm skeptical that
anybody took that approach because the
media misrepresents everything.
>> Do you think that this the way that you
just described it align with our
campaign in Iran?
>> Well, I think that the goal is certainly
good, which is to prevent Iran from
getting a nuclear weapon. And I I think
that there are obviously
a lot of questions about how best to
achieve that. There's both a short-term
and a long-term piece of it. I think the
short-term piece of it is effectively
what's already been done which is you
destroy the nuclear sites and you
destroy and eliminate the ability to
rebuild the nuclear sites. I think
there's a longer term thing which is
where like a lot of the debate is
focused on right now which is that
building a nuclear program is hard but
it's not impossible and it's expensive
but it's actually not even that
expensive if you look I mean you could
go on YouTube right now and find out how
to build an atomic bomb. So part of our
Iran policy, and this is where I get
frustrated with the people who say you
should never negotiate with Iran, part
of our Iran policy is like solving the
long-term problem that if we could
create the sort of circumstance where
Iran would commit not just to not have a
nuclear weapon right now, but over the
long term to not try to rebuild that
capacity, like yeah, I think that that
is a good and valuable thing.
>> If it was your call, would you have done
exactly the same [laughter] thing?
Well, what did the the president said um
publicly that JD was less enthusiastic
about it, I think was the exact phrase
that he used.
>> I mean, my attitude towards this man, as
you know, is the vice president. I'm not
a public commentator. Like, my job is to
give the best advice I can to the
president of the United States. I think
he's said a little bit about what that
advice was. Um, but once the president
makes a decision, so long as I think
that it's, you know, legal and ethical
and all that stuff, and I certainly
think whether you agree or disagree with
it, what we've done has been has been
legal, my attitude towards it is I try
to make it as successful as possible.
And I've got friends, of course, I think
you know, you've expressed some
skepticism of this. I've got a lot of
friends both in private and public
who've expressed skepticism of this who
say, "Well, this is terrible. We
disagree with the decision, etc., etc."
I'm not a public commentator. My
approach to this is not to Monday
morning quarterback a decision that was
made three months ago. My approach to it
is to try to make it as successful as
possible. Which is why I've poured my
heart and soul into these negotiations.
Which is why I've tried to make that
goal, Iran not having a nuclear weapon,
something that's not true both not just
now, but is true in the long term. And
that's the way that I try to approach
it. So, what is going on with Iran where
it seems like the president keeps saying
that a deal has been reached,
negotiations have been successful, and
then it all falls apart, and we start
bombing them again.
>> Yeah. So, uh, how long do we have here?
Cuz as much as you need So, so, so I
have to explain a couple of things in
the background so you sort of fully
appreciate, um, people fully appreciate
what's going on here. So number one,
it's a bit of a simplification, but you
have two elements within the Iranian
system. You have and and you sometimes
hear hawkish Americans say this that
they're all crazy people. They want to
bring about, you know, the the 12th imam
and the apocalypse and all that stuff.
There are people in Iran who believe
that they're also pragmatists. You've
got the crazy people, you've got the
pragmatists. Okay. So when we struck
thisou and really what theou says, and
I've it was misrepresented more than
almost anything that I've ever worked on
in public life. What it says is Iran is
going to open the straight of Hormuz.
The violence is going to stop and then
we're going to negotiate to see if we
can come to a broader deal on the
long-term nuclear issue. That's what we
wanted. And what the Iranians wanted, of
course, was long-term economic and
sanctions relief. Now, here's here's the
problem with where we are right now. And
and and I guess my summary view, Joe, is
that I of course can't predict the
future. I don't know exactly where this
is going to go, but I think
fundamentally we are on the right
trajectory. It's just going to be really
messy and there's going to be a lot of
stops and starts. So what happens the
first week after we sign theou, we get
20 million barrels a day of oil out of
the straight of Hormuz. That's what it
was before the war. The price of oil
comes way down and there are elements,
the hardliners in the Iranian system
kind of freak out a little bit. They're
like, "Oh [ __ ] did we just give away
our major leverage point? Screw nuclear
weapons. We just gave away this." So in
thisou and so there was this kind of
freak out in their system. So they shot
at a couple ships we responded and I
think that's entirely appropriate of
course if they're going to shoot at
ships we are going to shoot at the
people who are shooting at the ships or
we're going to destroy the facilities
that they're using to shoot at ships. So
that happens okay and then the Iranians
like oh no no fine that that you're
you're right we shouldn't have been
shooting at ships. So then they come
back to the table and there's a few more
days of negotiation and then the phase
they're in right now is the hardliners
have really really reacted strongly to
all the oil that's coming out of the
straight of Hormuz and they've basically
said we're going to try to shut this
thing down. We're scared about losing
our leverage. Now the pragmatists in
their system are saying this was a
mistake. Let's keep on talking. And
again do I know how this is ultimately
going to shake out? Of course I don't.
But what we're doing is a delicate
diplomatic dance where we're using
economic leverage points. We're using
carrots and sticks. We're trying to talk
to the pragmatists. And then of course
when they commit acts of violence, we're
responding to it. And all those things
are happening simultaneously to get us
on a better trajectory. Now that said,
yes, right now there's there's shooting
right now. Last night they shot at some
ships. The but with all that said, is
their nuclear program still destroyed?
Yes. Are the straits not necessarily
fully pre-war traffic, but are we
getting enough oil and gas out of the
straight of Hormuz to prevent a
worldwide energy crisis? Yes. And all of
these things are happening in the
context of the broader negot negotiation
over the nuclear program. You never know
where this is ultimately going to end
up, but that's where we are. And then
the can I just say one other thing about
this because [sighs] there are people
you know you see Mike Pence who's sort
of a superhawk my predecessor who say
this there are people you know um who
are super hawkish in the American system
who have attacked the deal and and
frankly in some ways have tried to
derail the deal and what I always say to
those people is what is your proposal
what is your actual argument so so just
take the straight of horm like the
narrowest but in some ways the most
important part of this back and forth
right now. Straight of Hormuz is a
narrow waterway. To the extent you shut
it down, you shut down 25% of the
world's energy supply. Okay, Joe, you
could take a $100,000 and go buy a bunch
of drones on the black market and post
yourself on an island in the Straight of
Hormuz near it and you could fire drones
at those ships. Okay? Now, what does
that mean? some oil and gas is still
going to get out because some ships and
some ship captains gonna say screw you.
Now, the United States can help that,
right? We can shoot down some of those
drones. We can shoot down some of those
missiles and so we can facilitate the
flow of traffic. But the people who are
like, you cannot negotiate with the
Iranians. The reason why that's
fundamentally idiotic is because so long
as you have some person who's willing to
fire off a few cheap drones, you're
going to have some ship captains who
say, "No, no, no. we're not willing to
do this. So, we got to kind of use all
tools at our disposal. The military is
one tool, but diplomacy is another tool.
And I I'm very frustrated by the
Americans and frankly by people in other
countries who are like, you cannot
negotiate with the Iranians. Well, then
what is your proposal to get people to
stop shooting at ships in the straight
of Hormuz? You can bomb them. You can
take away their radar. You can take away
some of their drones and some of their
missiles, but it's just too easy to fire
at ships in the straits. So, you've got
to actually be willing to talk and to
try to figure out the problem.
>> What is their proposal? The people that
think you shouldn't negotiate with Iran.
>> I think that their proposal is to bomb
and bomb and bomb. And the honest view,
Joe, is that they they do not actually
have a solution. If you actually ask
them, "What do you want us to do? What
is the goal that you're trying to
achieve?" You know, they'll they'll say
things like, "Well, just bomb them to
oblivion." Okay, we can do that. We can
drop a lot of bombs, but what does that
accomplish if there's still a crazy
person who's still willing to shoot a
few drones at the straight of Hormuz?
What the president has done, I think
very very capably is said, "We're going
to use military force in the in this
situation when it's connected to
something we're trying to achieve." So,
if you shoot at ships, we're going to
shoot at the facilities at which you
used to shoot at the ships. But we're
not just going to do something
open-ended indefinitely. We're not just
going to bomb and bomb and bomb. We're
going to try to use our military force
as one of the many tools that we have to
solve the problem. And obviously, like
I'm biased, but I think that's exactly
the right approach. I I actually think
you have to read between the lines a
little bit because if if you look at
what Mike Pence or some of the
conservative hawks, like people who
voted for us, but have been very
critical of me, very critical of the
administration,
if you actually look at what they're
proposing, they just want the military
campaign to go on forever. and they
can't actually identify what it is that
they're trying to accomplish. None of
them can identify what it is they're
trying to accomplish. And I and I read
two things between the lines. I think
some of them want us to accomplish a
complete change in the government of
Iran to topple the clerics and to
replace that those clerics with somebody
who's, you know, much friendlier. But
like look, what is our experience with
doing that?
>> It's not good. Right? And so, like, if
the Iranian people want to rise up and
change their government, that's up to
them. But we're not going to send
150,000 ground troops in in order to
accomplish a change in a regime unless
the people on the ground themselves want
to accomplish that outcome. Now, we're
not going to send the troops in
regardless, but like to propose sending
in the troops,
you're basically saying that the US
military should do the job for the
Iranian people. We're not in that
business anymore. We're just not. And
then I think a second outcome that
people are are whether they're aware of
it or not is what I call the Libya
outcome. So if you look at the end
result of our Libya policy after Gaddafi
was killed by the Obama administration,
by the way, again, a a very stupid
decision, what happened? Libya basically
turned into a failed state. You had a
refugee crisis. You had people pouring
into Europe, pouring into other parts of
Asia, other parts of Africa. You had a
lot of violence, a lot of terrorism come
from that. I do think that there are
people who would like that to be the
outcome in Iran. But then I say again,
what is in our interest? How is it in
the United States's interest to have 94
million desperate people flooding into
Europe, flooding into the United States,
to have, you know, sort of the the
terrorist infrastructure that can get
established when you fan terrorists all
over the world? We've run this
experiment before. And so our policy
right now, what we're trying to
accomplish is get the straits open,
ensure the free flow of oil and gas,
obviously want to keep the Iranians from
having a nuclear weapons program, and
using the tools of diplomacy and
military power to accomplish that.
>> And Libya failing and the collapse of
Libya is a lot of what's fueled the
migrant crisis in Europe as well.
Correct.
>> Exactly. that in Syria, another failed
state that was created by bad Middle
Eastern policy. So there is precedent
for the United States doing this. Every
time that it has happened, it's caused a
refugee crisis. It's caused a spike in
terrorism. And it's also not
incidentally to the moral
considerations. It's led to a lot of
innocent civilian deaths.
>> Now, what was the the talk about I think
the number was like $300 billion in
concessions to Iran to rebuild.
Yeah. So, this is another just [ __ ]
argument that the critics made against
the deal. And and and again, like I just
to back up a little bit, this is my own
little hobby horse, but look, we the
coalition that Donald Trump piloted to
the 2024 election campaign. It was a
landslide. We won seven states. It was
historic. Nobody, certainly no
Republican had actually led a coalition
like that, at least since the days of
Ronald Reagan. So, like literally before
I was alive. Okay. So, Donald Trump wins
this great coalition and look, it's got,
man, it's got hawks and it's got people
who hate foreign wars. Okay. It's got
people like you and people like Tucker.
It's also got people like Mark Leven and
others. Okay. I just accept that as a
reality. That's part of the coalition. I
don't say that anybody is welcome or
unwelcome. I say that if you're willing
to sort of help us, you're going to get
a lot what you want. You don't get
everything that you want. What has
really annoyed me about the the hawkish
side of this thing is
they attack any effort to negotiate.
They attack the president. They attack
me personally. Donald Trump is betraying
me. Well, wait a second. I if you if you
if you want to have like a hawkish
policy towards Iran, the idea that
Donald Trump has betrayed you because
he's also trying to negotiate to get a
good outcome for the American people is
crazy. And so you've seen a lot of these
people completely flip on him. And that
brings me to the 300 million or the $300
billion point. What we what we did with
with theou is is we actually worked not
just with the Iranians but with the Gulf
Arab states.
>> What is the term? What does it stand
for?
>> Memorandum of understanding. It's the
basic it's the basic structure that we
set up for the negotiation. So what what
happened here is okay so people sort of
think of of the Middle East as like Iran
versus Israel. I think a lot of people
do. There's also a massive number of
Gulf States that are really important,
good allies to the United States. You
know, they and Israel don't always see
eye to eye, but we're obviously very
close to both Israel and to the Gulf
States. And the Gulf States actually
came to us and said, "You know what? If
the Iranians are willing, really willing
to change their behavior, we'd like to
invest in rebuilding their country."
Now,
whether they change their behavior is
something that's going to be determined
over the long term, right? We want to
see real changes. We want to see them to
stop funding terrorist organizations.
And also, of course, none of that money
comes from the United States. But if
Iran's biggest enemies in the region are
saying, "We'd like to invest if they've
changed their behavior. Would the United
States let us? Would we release the
sanctions that would make it possible
for the UAE and Saudi Arabia and other
countries to invest in Iran?" Our
attitude was, well, isn't that a victory
for us? If Iran's biggest enemies see
that they have changed themselves so
much that they're willing to invest in
the Iranian economy, isn't that like the
definition of a win-win? And then you
had all these people saying, "No, no,
no, no. You can't give them $300
billion." It's like, we're not talking
about giving them $300 billion. We're
talking about letting other countries
invest in Iran if Iran has changed the
way that it treats the Gulf Arab
countries. It's fundamentally between
them, meaning the Iranians and the Gulf
Arab countries. So there's this line in
theou that basically says that if Iran
meets all of its obligations, then we
will permit other countries to invest in
Iran. That's it. And that like again,
the hawks attacked us and misrepresented
this and lied about it and said the
Trump administration is going to give
the Iranians $300 billion. And it's
totally fake. It's completely made up.
and it was done purely in order to
politically tank the negotiation. So
there there's been this interesting
dynamic here where as we've been trying
to negotiate, there have been these
extraordinarily wellunded efforts to
tank the negotiation to prevent us from
reaching a deal to change American
public opinion, which by the way, if you
look at the public opinion, people love
the idea of actually getting to a final
resolution on this thing. Americans do
not they're not game for long-term, you
know, open-ended regime change wars in
the Middle East. They're okay with us
using the military to accomplish
discrete objectives. They're not okay
with open-ended obligations.
>> What do you think the motivation of the
hawks is? Do do you think this is are
they influenced by defense contractors?
So the influence what is what's the
reason why they're so keen on continuing
to bomb?
>> I think with with any big group of
people you have you know you have a
diversity of opinions. So so sure I I'm
sure that you know you have people who
are influenced by defense contractors.
You know there's a lot of talk about how
how much is the Israeli government
influencing American politics and uh
there are certainly certain people
within the Israeli government who hate
the deal. And we we we see exact
evidence. There was a Times story that
came out yesterday
um that basically there are certain
influencers in America who are being
paid in order to attack the deal. I
think some of it it's just pure
political ideology, right? It's foreign
policy perspectives that is that are
much different from mine. They think
that America should just that we can
basically you can wave a magic wand with
the military and accomplish whatever you
want. And you know, it's it's not that
simple. You actually have to have a very
clear objective. Military power can
accomplish a clear objective, but you've
got to have that clear objective. You
can't just say, "We're going to bomb
until something good happens." That
never works. The United States has tried
that before. So, I think it's a
combination of things, but I I
definitely think you have seen this very
discreet, extremely well-funded campaign
to try to derail the negotiation and try
to derail the deal. And you know, there
was again there's this time article that
came out yesterday. A friend sent it to
me. It's like worth reading because it
lists a bunch of people who have quite
literally been paid
by a former Trump campaign person who
was himself paid by certain elements
within the Israeli government. And those
people are attacking me viciously for
quite literally trying to accomplish the
negotiation objective that the president
set for the country. So,
>> what is their position? Like, are
they're attacking you? How?
>> Oh, it's it's social media posts. It's,
you know, they're leaking to reporters.
They're attacking me obsessively saying
that we should not be negotiating with
Iran. We should just keep the military
campaign going indefinitely. And that is
that is their explicit position. and
coming after me saying that, you know,
people have come after me and say that
I'm influenced by Qatar, that I'm
influenced by foreign governments, that,
you know, I take my marching orders from
Tucker Carlson. And there there's just
so much [ __ ] out there when what I'm
actually trying to do is accomplish what
the president of the United States told
me to accomplish, which is a settlement
of this that accomplishes our
objectives. Iran doesn't have a nuclear
weapon. We have the free flow of oil and
gas. and and and like I should be clear
um you know
like I don't actually mind I don't mind
that the
you know let's say certain elements of
the Israeli government want to criticize
the deal or have disagreements about the
deal. I don't even mind an effort to try
to influence, you know, foreign
governments try to influence the United
States all the time. You know, Israel
does it, other countries do it. It's
just sort of the nature of the beast.
What bothers me is actually when
Americans allow, meaning American
leadership allows that influence to
affect their judgment and to affect what
they are advocating for. That's what
really bothers me. People are always
going to try to influence the United
States of America, whether they're
allies of ours or whether they're
enemies of ours. But again, when I open
up the pages of Time magazine and I see
that there's a literal foreign influence
campaign being funded to tank the very
deal that I was pursuing and oh, by the
way, many of the people who were
receiving that money were actually
attacking me in completely dishonest
ways. You know, my response to that is,
well, go to hell. I'm going to do what I
have to do for the American people. I
represent Americans first, and that's
the way that I've I've tried to to do
this job. And I, you know, Joe, the
crazy thing is I'm like, people don't
realize this. I'm actually in this, you
know, there's this massive pro-Israel,
anti-Israel debate in the United States
of America. I'm like the reasonable
moderate. And I think that's what so
many people don't realize is, you know,
I've been accused of being an
anti-semite. I've been accused been
accused
>> for what reason? uh quite literally for
um I I've been accused of trying to I
guess some people say that I've insulted
the Jewish religion which is insane.
Like I like I have a ton of respect for
the Jewish religion. I mean if you talk
about
>> What specifically did you say that
>> I don't know I've never heard the a good
compelling argument for why I'm an
anti-semite even though I've been
accused of being an anti-semite by many
people. But it's it I what always what I
say to these guys is look at public
opinion. Look at the way young
Republicans versus Republicans over the
age of 65 approach this issue. Like
right now, Israel is losing the public
opinion battle in the United States of
America. It is a simple and obvious
fact. Donald Trump has said that
publicly. It's a simple and obvious
fact. that is
>> well let me finish this point because
okay my attitude is towards this is
>> Israel is an ally like France or like
the United Kingdom we're going to have
disagreements with them we're going to
have agreements with them there are
areas where we're going to have similar
interests and areas where our interests
are going to diverge so my approach to
this is to say you know what we're
partnered great let's work together and
we're not let's just be honest about it
and I for that people attack me for
being an anti-Semite or anti-Israel and
they don't see the writing on the wall
that I'm actually just the guy
advocating for a normal relationship
with a normal country that's based
around shared interest as opposed to
based around, you know, something else.
So why why is Israel losing um why is
Israel losing American public opinion?
Well, the narrative is that Israel has a
very disproportionate effect on American
politics.
>> Yeah, I see that. I see that narrative.
I mean, I actually think that
they
look, do they try to influence American
politics? Yes. But like I said earlier,
a lot of other countries do. I think
some
>> to the extent that Israel does.
>> I think some are better at it than
others. I think the Israel are
definitely more effective at it than
most. But I wouldn't say that they're
the only effective country by any means
that tries to influence American
politics. I just think you have to be
self-aware about it. I mean, why
wouldn't you? It's a country of 9
million people. We have 330 million
people. And so, of course, they're going
to try to persuade Americans. They're
going to try to move Americans in one
direction or another. I think that's
just the nature of the beast.
>> But it's more than that. The concern is
that they're spying on American
politicians. That they're there's
there's there's concerns about funding.
There's concerns about influence.
There's concerns about whether or not
politicians are whether they're aligned
with Israel or whether they're aligned
with the United States first.
>> Well, there's certainly [sighs]
like I definitely get those concerns,
but my sense is that the way that all
foreign influence works in the United
States is people try to manipulate
American public opinion and then from
manipulating it public opinion they try
to get the outcomes that they want. I
this thing is a very good example of
this. So, you know, like we know, I'm
telling you beyond a reasonable doubt,
we know that the negotiation strategy
that the president has asked us to
pursue and again with limitations like
when the Iranians hit ships, the
president has been willing to knock the
hell out of the Iranians in response.
This is not just a negotiation. It's
negotiation, it's military, it's all
these things. But I know with beyond a
shadow of a doubt that there have been
people within the Israeli government who
are trying to like actually shift us
away from that policy because they want
to continue the military campaign. And
by the way, like there are people within
their government that I love, I have
good relationships with. I hope and I
don't think that they're part of this. I
mean, you know, the the ambassador of of
uh Israel to the United States, I think
is actually really good guy. Obviously,
he cares about Israel first. I care
about America first. But there are some
people within their system, we know
beyond a shadow of a doubt, who are
manipulating and trying to change
American public opinion to keep the war
going on indefinitely. Again, not
towards any objective, but just
indefinitely. So like, does it happen?
Yes. But I guess what I would say to the
Americans who sort of see this and are
frustrated by it, my attitude would be
you should be frustrated at American
leaders who are, you know, persuaded by
this, affected by this.
Countries are going to do what countries
do. I really don't. It doesn't bother me
that Qatar tries to influence the United
States of America and they do. I like a
lot of the Qataris just like I like a
lot of the Israelis. Doesn't bother me
that Israel tries to do this. It frankly
doesn't even bother me that Russia or
some of these other countries do it.
It's just the nature of being a
political leader in 2026. What does
bother me is when those operations,
those influence campaigns actually
affect American political judgment
because they shouldn't because we should
be thinking what is in the best interest
of the United States of America.
>> Do you think that Israel is affecting
American political judgment?
Um,
I mean,
I certainly think that
there are a lot of talking points and
there are a lot of arguments that make
their way into American political
discourse. I think there are a lot of
social media campaigns that definitely
influence Americans and affect
Americans. Do I think that it's been
dispositive on any particular issue like
like I think that's a much more
difficult question.
>> Do you think that we would have started
this war in Iran without the influence
of Israel?
>> I think the president completely
separate from any influence from Israel
believes very strongly and again I agree
with this that Iran should not have a
nuclear weapon. I think he was willing
to do things
>> bombed them in June.
>> Right. That was the initial attack,
right?
>> June of last year. Yeah. Midnight
hammer.
>> Yeah. Right.
Do you think he would have continued
with the most recent campaign if it
wasn't for the influence of Israel?
>> Yes. Yes, I I do. Really? I do. Yeah.
>> Look, I mean, I I I I think
[sighs and gasps]
again, and I see this and I see it even
from people that are in our coalition,
and this would be my my flip side to the
hawks who have been attacking me or the
president mercilessly over negotiation.
I would sort of turn this back on some
of the doves or some of the realists who
have been attacking the president of the
United States.
>> The doves. Those are the peace peace
people.
>> Peace people.
>> That's what you call them.
>> Hawks and doves. You never heard that
phrase? [laughter]
>> I've heard hawks. I've heard hawks. I
don't think I've ever heard doves.
>> Hawks and and pigeons. Hawks and I don't
know.
>> I think it's more doves.
>> Doves is good. Right. So
what what I I think a lot of people I've
heard this argument
>> is is this idea that Donald Trump,
you know, was sort of I've even heard
people say he was blackmailed into this.
>> Yeah.
>> By the not true, dude. It's just it's
just not true. I've seen the decision-m
up close. Again, whether you agree or
disagree with our negotiation or whether
you agree or disagree with the decision
to launch the campaign epic fury to
begin with, the idea that Donald Trump
is being like back blackmailed is crazy
to me because again, I I see the way
that he makes decisions. I see the way
that he processes this stuff. Like the
idea that he picks up the phone with
anybody and says, "Hey, like I'm going
to take orders from you." No, that's
just not how Donald Trump operates. Can
you understand though why people would
come to that conclusion especially
because the of the Epstein files?
>> What do you mean?
>> Well, the Epstein files were supposed to
be released. We were and there was a
tremendous amount of resistance to those
files being released and that concerned
a lot of people cuz if if you're talking
about very wealthy, powerful people that
were engaged in crimes.
>> I see. I So you're you're basically
saying like there's a the fear is that
whatever's in the Epstein files was used
to blackmail like the administration
into doing the Iran thing
>> or at the very least the people that
were involved in the Epstein files that
didn't want them coming out had undue
influence.
>> Well
again like say this with all cander like
we absolutely screwed up the comms of
the Epstein files like we just did. But
do I think the reason we screwed up the
comms is because we were trying to hide
something? No. I think the reason we
screwed up the comms of the Epstein
files is one, you know, Pam said Pam
Bondi said the client list is on my
desk, right?
>> Well, see, they had binders. They were
they were sitting in front
>> but those binders were largely documents
that had already been released, right?
So, so here's let me try what was the
purpose of that performative display of
the Epstein files and and she was saying
there's tens of thousands of hours of
film.
>> I don't know what the purpose of it was,
but I know that the effect of it was to
make people mistrust the entire effort.
And I think what I think was happening,
look, I I know Pam. I like Pam. I don't
think there was anything malicious going
on. I think Pam was trying to respond to
the political moment. I think she
overstated what we had and what we
didn't have. And I think that she, you
know, got got roasted for it publicly by
a lot of people, including me. Like, you
know, you and I have talked about this a
lot. I'm like one of the OG Epstein
conspiracy theorists. I've probably gone
down every single rabbit hole. We could
go down uh most of them today. Look, the
original sin of the Epstein
investigation,
and obviously I'm biased here, but it
was not what Donald Trump and the
administration did in 2025. It was you
have to go back to 2007208, the original
Alex Aosta investigation of Jeffrey
Epstein where he basically dropped the
federal charges. I think Epstein ended
up getting prosecuted on some sort of
local thing. But the original warrant,
you go to the original warrant back in
2008. What was he looking for? What was
he allowed to look for? What were they
collecting? It was not looking at a
broader conspiracy. So that happens.
Okay. Epstein gets pinched. I think he
goes to prison or maybe this is when he
was on house arrest. Mhm.
>> But like anything that existed from the
80s and 90s up to 2006, 2007, anything
that existed that we didn't get back
then was disappeared. Right? So like
when people say has has what you've seen
on the inside make you think that the
you know that Epstein never blackmailed
people or that Epstein never engaged in
broader sex trafficking? No, absolutely
not. What I have seen, and I've looked
at most of the files, is that there just
wasn't dispositive evidence. And if that
dispositive evidence ever existed, it
was probably destroyed after 2006, 2007.
Now, look, again, in our defense,
yes, was there some, you know, bitching
and moaning and was there some back and
forth? Yes. But there we eventually
collected six million documents as part
of the effort. the president. People say
the president was forced into releasing
the documents. Like again, the idea that
Donald Trump could not have killed that
legislation, especially with the United
States Senate is a joke. He absolutely
could have killed it. What did he do? He
actually said, "Nope, we're going to
release these files." He thought, you
know, he was annoyed by the story. He
was annoyed by the Democrats accusing
him of doing things bad. By the way,
like do I think there is any I've never
seen a single piece of cred credible
evidence that the president of United
States engaged in wrongdoing with minors
ever. So, like when the president says
the hoax, that's what he's talking about
is this democratic idea that he somehow
was a was a pedophile. It's absurd.
There's no evidence for it. Now, the
Epstein docu the Epstein, you know, law
gets signed. We find six million
documents. We find about 3 million of
them are actually responsive has
something to do with the Epstein estate.
We release all of them with the
exception of a few things that are like,
you know, the courts have said that we
have to redact certain things or we
can't release certain files. But like we
did release all these files. Did it take
longer than it should have taken? Yes.
But we did release these files. And
again, the problem here is not
like
anything that's in the files or not in
the files. The problem is if you go back
to the original investigation, it was
designed in a way that was way too
narrow. If there was a broader
conspiracy and you know, my view is that
there probably was. The evidence that
existed in 2007, that was the
opportunity to get.
>> So when you say there probably was a
broader conspiracy, what exactly are you
saying? I think there are a few
different options. I mean, look, man, I
like you could you and I could literally
do two episodes about this. I've gone on
down every rabbit hole. There's this
funny New York Times story that's
somewhat true, somewhat false, but where
Susie Wilds, the White House chief of
staff, says, "Well, we know JD's a
conspiracy theorist on this." Like, I am
actually. I've I've gone down every
every rabbit hole here. Look, so there's
the theory that whether it was American
intel or foreign intel that Epstein was
sort of using
um Epstein was using sort of the the sex
ring to blackmail rich and powerful
people. There's that piece of it. You
know, I'm I'm I I think there's a
separate conspiracy that hasn't gotten
covered as much, which is that Epstein
actually, okay, if you go back to to the
original Epstein guy was Les Wexner,
okay, who Columbus, Ohio was the
wealthiest person in Ohio, maybe still
is the wealthiest person in the state of
Ohio. The thing that everybody in
Columbus, and I lived there for a time,
knew about the Wexner Epstein
relationship is that Epstein was his tax
guy. that Epstein was like the genius at
identifying weird tax strategies that
would allow you to not have to pay
taxes, but if you were being a little
skeptical would also say that it would
allow Epstein to either blackmail people
or to have a separate nexus of influence
and control on rich and powerful people.
And so I think there's an under
reportported underexploited story of is
EP was Epstein like doing a lot of tax
stuff that was not on the up and up and
is that one way in which he gained
blackmail. It's it's not opposite of the
sexual blackmail story but in some ways
it's it's uh you know you could imagine
both things being true. Um I also just
think there's an element of he was a
scumbag. He was a very sick person. He
built relationships with a lot of other
rich and powerful people who just didn't
have any real moral judgment about the
fact the guy was obviously a scumbag.
And again, to go back to defending
Donald Trump, I know people don't want
to hear this these days, but like who
was the guy? People say Donald Trump was
blackmailed by Jeffrey Epste. Who was
the guy who narked on Epstein to the
Palm Beach police? That's in the Epstein
files, right?
>> It was Donald Trump.
>> He also kicked him out of Maraago.
>> He kicked him out of Mara Lago. It's
just
>> it's obvious that Epstein was a sick
man.
>> Yes. But if people want to say we
mishandled the Epstein release, guilty.
We did mishandle especially the
communications of it.
>> What do you think should have been done?
>> I think that we should have just dropped
everything at the very beginning and
like obviously it takes a little time to
review the stuff, to find the stuff, to
redact things where you have victims and
so forth, but we should have just done
it as quickly as possible.
>> But some of the stuff that was redacted,
some of the names that were redacted
weren't victims.
So yeah, I I I I've looked into this and
my understanding of this having looked
at a lot of this but not all of it is
that it is sometimes hard to draw a
distinction between victim and
co-conspirator and like let me highlight
this in a very sort of obvious way. Ro
Kana, who's been one of the most one of
the loudest voices on the Epstein file.
Well, he became very loud on the Epstein
files the minute Donald Trump became
president. Didn't seem to care about it
during the Biden administration. He
actually brought one of the Epstein
victims, I think, to the State of the
Union last year, or maybe it was the
year before last. Well, like that
victim, and I'm not accusing, I'm not
saying she wasn't a victim. Uh I don't
know anything about her particular case.
She was also listed as a co-conspirator
in some of these documents. Right? So
there's an idea that some of the people
who were engaged in the sex trafficking
were also, you know, facilitating it as
well.
>> So they were incentivized to get more
girls.
>> Yeah. But but what I but yes, that's
right. But the the idea is that it's
it's hard to sort of it's sometimes a
little bit of a gray area between, you
know, some of the people who were
alleged victims were also alleged
co-conspirators. And so what DOJ tried
to do was kind of make that judgment as
best they could and release as much as
possible. But it's clear that he was
trying to get in contact with people
that he felt were influential. It was
clear that he was trying to get people
to get together on the island and meet
at parties. So there there was something
he was doing where he was trying to
either influence people or compromise
people.
>> Correct.
>> So it's not there's some sort of an
operation that was going on. There there
is a story there and
you know I I will go to my deathbed
believing there's a story there but I
can't prove it and I I promise you
there's not some document that at least
I'm hiding that allows us to prove
exactly what was going on and how
>> he was he was also trying to get
scientists and this is one of the
reasons supposedly why he got that
>> okay so
>> branch in New Mexico. So, so a friend of
mine has this element, sorry, I should
step back. Conspiracy theories. One of
the ways you discredit conspiracy
theory, I thought about this a lot, is
try to hide it. Another way you
discredit conspiracy theories by
flooding the zone. So, one of the things
I've tried to do when looking at all
this stuff is to try to understand sort
of where it fits in and and to, you
know, try to separate the real from the
fake. But one really interesting element
of the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga, okay,
so he dies in 2019, right? This is at
the very end of of the first Trump
administration.
His death coincides
very very closely. This is not my
observation. This is a friend, but I
don't want to, you know, reveal
confidences here. Re it coincides very
closely with the end of what you might
call the era of censorship in academia.
So back in 2019 2020 we reached sort of
peak academic censorship where people
wouldn't publish a medical study because
it might have sort of disparited impact
racial undertones or people were getting
fired from academia for not doing land
acknowledgements stuff like that. Okay,
I'm not saying that stuff has completely
gone away but Epstein we know was
funding a ton of scientists. By the way,
where did his money come from? He was
funding a ton of scientists but like
when he died
it's almost like the era of censorship
started to break because he wasn't just
he was also plugged into a lot of in
academia but also you know he's plugged
into the social media companies like
this is a dude who knew everybody he
knew everybody
>> so
look
>> so where did his money come from? Well,
from given um part of it is suspect tax
advice and uh setting up tax schemes for
a lot of very very rich people,
>> right? But why was he motivated to
influence
academia and what what what was the
purpose?
>> I don't know the answer to that
question. I mean, I I have theories.
There's there's of course the
>> Well, most people think he was MSAD.
>> Yeah. Assad or CIA or some other deep
state, whether in America or Israel or
another country or or both. Um,
>> you know, look, was he he clearly had
connections to the upper the highest
levels of American intelligence? He
clearly had connections to the highest
levels of Israeli intelligence. In fact,
one of the interesting story, one of the
interesting things the Epstein saga
reveals about and and I try to make this
point is one of the reasons why I'm
always careful and I say there are some
elements within the Israeli government
who don't like our peace process because
there are a lot of elements within the
Israeli government that actually do like
our peace process. They recognize that
this indefinite campaign is not good for
them either. And and the Epstein thing
is interesting because as much as I
know, you know, Prime Minister
Netanyahu, not a particularly popular
person in the United States of America
right now,
Epstein seemed to be connected to the
elements of the Israeli deep state that
were left of center. Like I've always
found that fascinating. It wasn't like
he was super connected to the right of
center of Israeli politics. America, he
was connected across the board. like he
had Republican friends, he had
Democratic friends, he had much deeper
connections to the Israeli left of
center than right of center. I don't
know what that means. I always
>> hanging out with Steve Bannon and Nam
Chosky.
>> Exactly. He had again in America he had
friends across the political spectrum in
a way he didn't necessarily have in
Israel.
>> I had one of my guests try to get me to
meet him.
>> Really?
>> Yeah.
>> When?
>> 2017.
See, that that's crazy to me because at
that point he'd already gone down for at
least one like sex abuse thing.
>> That was my possession. [laughter]
>> I'll show you the emails. Okay. It's
kind They're kind of funny. I actually
read them on stage.
>> You want to say Okay, fine.
>> You people could find it.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't want to have the guy the guy's
already ruined.
>> Sure.
>> But um but [clears throat] it's
>> I Googled it and I'm I'm like what the
[ __ ] are you talking about?
>> See, but this goes back to my original
point.
>> This is part of what he was doing,
right? He wanted to get influential
people.
>> But you go back to the original 2007
warrant on Jeffrey Epstein.
>> Uhhuh.
>> All of the really crazy [ __ ] happened
from the '9s to 2007. That's when he was
at the peak of his power. That's when he
hadn't yet gone down on a sex abuse
scandal. Like it's your point, right?
Even if you have some scumbags who were
willing to introduce him to Joe Rogan in
2017, there are a lot of Joe Rogan, or
at least some who are going to say,
"Wait a second. I'm gonna Google this
guy and find out that he's a predator. A
lot. A lot didn't.
>> That was really crazy.
>> A lot didn't, but some did. And my point
is that would limit his influence.
>> But if you go back to like the 1990s,
the early 2000s,
that is the stuff I think that is like
the black hole of the Epstein saga. We
don't have nearly enough from that era.
And
>> it was destroyed. I think we had a
prosecution that explicitly was so
narrow that whatever existed would not
have even been caught up.
>> Right. So, they were specifically going
after him for underage sex and they
didn't look at the full picture of the
operation.
>> They didn't even try to they didn't even
try to
>> Well, that was one of the things about
the prosecutor was told that he was
above their pay grade. I mean, it was
one of the things that he
>> said he [clears throat] was like CIA or
something, right? He said he was told he
was intelligent,
>> right? And yes, I've asked were there
like
were there documents connecting Jeffrey
Epstein directly to our intelligence
agencies or anybody else's? And the
answer is no. But if that [ __ ] existed,
it wouldn't exist in 2026.
>> What is it like being the vice
president? Like how much access do you
have to information? [laughter]
>> Because
>> so I'll give you another conspiracy. So
I have like effectively unlimited access
to information.
>> Unlimited. But I think that the
one of the things that I've learned
about the job is it's you're doing so
much on the day-to-day like you're
calling senators and trying to get them
to pass a piece of legislation. You're
meeting with staff about what should go
in the housing bill. You're negotiating
with the Iranians or the cutteries or
the Israelis about something that's
going on in the Middle East.
And a lot of it like the UFO thing like
I I've said that I'm going to like I'm
going to look into the UFO thing and
I've been saying that for a year and a
half and I haven't done it yet because I
haven't had the time. And so some of
this is like you just have to have the
time to actually punch through the walls
and to like go to the gatekeepers and
say you have to open up that gate
because I'm the vice president. And some
of it is just hard to actually get to
because I don't have the time to sort of
focus on that one issue for any
particular period of time. So the answer
is you have unlimited access to
information. The constraint is not
people tell me no. The constraint is
you're just so busy doing other [ __ ]
The UFO thing I think would be something
that I would want to pursue.
>> Yes.
>> I I mean just for my own personal
information I would want to know what is
going on.
>> Correct. So the question is, are these
um special access programs that are
above top secret and that this is our
own stuff or is this something that's
far more bizarre and something that is
interdimensional from another planet?
Whatever fill in the blank.
>> Yeah. Is it foreign? And if it's
foreign, is it 6,000 mi away or like
6,000 light years away?
>> Right.
>> Yes.
>> Right. And that is that is I will answer
that question eventually.
>> Really?
>> Yes. I'll get to the bottom of it.
>> How how are you going to have the time
to do that? Like what what will be
eventually I'll have like a few weeks
where I can just sit down and worry
about that problem. You said something
that I thought was very bizarre.
>> Here's here's the interesting thing
though. I will say
that is one of those conspiracy theories
that
there are a lot of people in our
government who are interested in this,
meaning our current political leadership
who are interested in this question. And
it hasn't like nothing has really
happened yet, which
makes me a little bit less interested in
it cuz there are a lot of people with
access to those files and access to that
information and nothing has changed
since Biden left office, which which
makes me think other people have looked
into it and they just haven't
necessarily found something. But anyway,
I I eventually I promise you I'm gonna
like sit down and spend a couple of
weeks trying to figure out what's in
these files. Actually, haven't done it
yet.
>> You said something that I thought was
very odd.
>> Okay.
>> You said that you thought that they were
demons.
>> Okay. I did say that.
>> What did you mean by that?
Well, [sighs and gasps]
I
first of all there not just in
Christianity but in a number of world
religions
there are a number of like
you know mystical things that happened
extradimensional
extra like I I I'm not one of these
people who's like a hyperrationalist
like I I think that there are things
happening in the world that we're not
always seeing. I you know I believe in
God. But I think that there is a kind of
what's what's the word I'm looking for?
Not extra real
>> supernatural.
>> Supernatural. There are supernatural
things that are happening. Okay. So if
you look historically
at, you know, things that are similar to
the alien phenomenon
where oh some like strange being. It
kind of looks like a human being but
doesn't look like but but not human and
it shows a particular interest in human
beings and then it takes the human
beings and you know like does weird
experiments on them. I think my argument
is that's either [ __ ] right? You're
either talking to a crazy person, which
I don't like. I'm not saying just
because I believe in the supernatural
doesn't believe mean I believe in
everything supernatural. But if we're
talking about an extraterrestrial
being that is humanlike but not human
that contains effectively infinite
powers and is torturing human beings,
you can call it an alien if you want,
but I think there's a lot of historical
precedent to call that a demon.
>> Well, a lot of these uh stories and
these accounts,
>> we have one right here on the
>> demonic. Yeah, that's the mothership
logo.
>> [laughter]
>> Um, a lot of these uh accounts are not
of
beings being or people being tortured.
They're people that are being exposed to
information like the Travis Walton
stories of very famous case uh from the
1970s.
>> Read about it on the way back though.
>> It's this guy right here. I got a Travis
Walton followed. [laughter] He's one of
the most famous uh UFO abduction
stories.
>> Okay. There was a movie um with DB
Cooper in the uh
>> and like what is the information that
they gave Travis Waldman?
>> Was DB Cooper the that was the
>> DB Sween
>> DB Sweeney DB Cooper was the guy who
stole the money and jumped out of the
plane. Um Fire in the Sky there's a a
movie
>> of course. Yeah, I remember this movie.
I don't think I ever saw it though.
>> 1993. Good movie but sensational and and
Travis Walton says they made a bunch of
[ __ ] up and that's not what happened.
But
>> yeah,
>> the story was that he was uh a logger in
Arizona uh and he was uh leaving a job.
They were all together in a truck and
these uh these loggers saw this thing,
this light uh land in this uh forest and
they went to go investigate. He jumps
out of the truck and he gets close to it
and he's hit by some beam of light and
knocked to the ground. Uh they take off
and then they realize like we've got to
go back. we don't know what's going on.
Like they turn around, they go back to
get him. They They're freaked out and
panicked. They go back to get him. He's
gone. Uh the police interview them. They
think that they killed him. They they
you know, there's an investigation. 5
days later, he shows up uh wearing the
same clothes. Um and he has this crazy
story. And uh he had been in this
spaceship for five days is what he said.
And that they had fixed him. They healed
him and then they had communicated with
him telepathically and he had had this
very bizarre encounter with these um
these beings that aren't from here or if
they are from here they're very
different than us.
>> Okay. So I guess my my response to that
would be extra powerful beings in this
case communicating telepathically
helping people
sounds like an angel. So, I guess my
point here here's let me let me make the
like the the steelman version of my
argument.
>> It's that
>> okay
>> my dog
there's no real difference between me
and and God to my dog. I can literally
walk into a room and turn the light on.
I can make food appear instantaneously.
I can transport myself across time and
space very, very rapidly. If you're a
human being with intelligence but not
supernatural intelligence, I I guess my
point is again, this could all be
[ __ ] This could all be fake. That's
a possibility. But if it's real, is
there really a meaningful difference
between an angel or a demon and a space
alien with super technology? I just to
our perception, they would largely just
look like the same thing.
>> I think we're capable of nuance. We're
capable of understanding that human
beings are far more complex and evolved
than chimpanzees. And we could imagine a
world where if we don't blow ourselves
up and there's not a nuclear bomb and
there's not a we don't get hit by an
asteroid, if we live another million
years that we would have technology
that's indistinguishable from magic.
>> Right.
>> Exactly. That's that's
angels and demons. It just means they're
hyper evolved advanced civilizations
from somewhere else.
>> And what I'm saying is the perception of
those beings to a more simple
intelligence.
>> Sure.
>> There's not a meaningful there's not a
meaningful difference. So you're you're
asking you're like talking about what it
is that these things actually are. And I
guess what I'm talking about is how
would a human being with my level of
intelligence or your level of
intelligence in 2026 understand what's
going on,
>> right? But from a biblical perspective,
there's a very big difference between a
demon and a a hyper intelligent being
from somewhere else.
>> [sighs]
>> I mean, a demon or a hyper intelligent
malicious.
>> If if demons are real, if there really
are dark forces in the universe, and
they're disembodied dark forces, these
things that exist, these
>> Yes.
>> And then there's also powerful light
forces in the universe
>> that that they don't have to be mutually
exclusive to the the concept of
hyperintelligent other species.
Absolutely.
>> When you're looking at an insanely vast
universe, I don't think they have to be,
but I think that
it is interesting to me that for most of
human history,
we would have understood supernatural,
hyper powerful, hyper knowledgeable
things as sort of celestial or
celestial. Thought
>> of a cell phone as being sorcery. I
mean, it doesn't that doesn't mean it's
sorcery. [laughter]
>> Maybe it's not. Maybe it's just
technology. I just it that argument
doesn't make any sense to me.
>> Well,
>> and this is not discounting the
possibility of demons or discounting the
possibility of angels.
>> Well, I guess I understand your point
conceptually. I don't dis actually
disagree with it. So, I don't think
we're saying something different that
you know metaphysically there could be
two separate things going on. There
could be celest there could be extra
earth outside of earth space aliens and
there could also be angels and demons.
These these could be two totally
separate things. One could be true and
not the other. That's I I I totally
concede and agree with that point. I
guess what I'm saying is
it's a distinction that is conceptually
interesting to me. But if a space alien
with like superhuman technology comes to
the earth and has malicious intent,
I don't know how I'm supposed to tell
the difference between that and the
demon
>> if they have malicious intent. But I
mean, isn't that also the case with
visiting people, right? Like you you
could have a country and you get visited
by the Peace Corps or you get visited by
pirates.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, and are the pirates demons? Is
the Peace Corps angels? No, but I think
we're talking about something much
different.
>> Are we talking about something
different? We're talking about a hyper
advanced version of that.
>> We're we're talking about I mean, as I
understand it, we're talking about
things that exist outside the United
States. Sorry, outside of the Earth.
Okay. And two different types of beings
that could exist outside I mean, okay,
maybe
>> there's a lot of people, you know, Tim
Bashette thinks that they're they're
here.
>> There's Atlantis or there's something
else. that they're they're somehow or
another they're survivors of a of
longgone civilization that live under
the ocean.
>> Yeah,
>> it's just as kooky as living.
>> Here's here's the way I would put it is
like there's also a difference between a
demon and a ghost, right? These things
are two very different conceptual
things,
>> right? But if I'm a human being and I
meet a malicious ghost, maybe I think
it's a demon. And and maybe all I'm
saying is maybe there's some
there's some point at which the
conceptually interesting this is such a
weird conversation. at which point the
conceptually interesting discussion of
what it is is separate from how it
appears to me and how I'm going to
understand it as a human being in my
particular social and cultural context
in 2026. But if you're looking for me to
concede the point that there is
something different or could be
something different between an angel, a
demon, a space alien, a a supernatural
but non any of those other things
beings. Yes, I concede that.
>> Yeah. The the question is what does
what do these special access programs
like what is the information that's
available like how
>> my understanding is David Brush and a
lot of these other people that there
have been crash retrieval programs.
>> Okay. And I've I've so I've talked to
Dave before. I think I called him
actually after he was on your podcast.
Um,
so
there's like the crash retrieval stuff
of whether that's that's real or not,
where is it, etc. There's the videos,
right? There are all of these videos,
some of which have been released and
declassified, that seem to me show some
pretty weird stuff. And then there might
be other pieces of evidence as well. I'm
not saying there is or isn't. I just
don't know. I I try to keep an open mind
about this stuff. All I'm saying is I'm
fascinated by it. I don't have like some
secret sauce, at least not yet, that
tells me what's true and what's false.
I'm just saying this is something that
I'm interested in. But it doesn't it's
it's because it's it's like anything in
life where do I have to figure this out
this week? No. So, I'm going to do the
things that I have to like negotiate
with the Iranians and try to get this
bill passed.
>> So, let's imagine a world where the
Iranian negotiations go swimmingly.
>> [laughter]
>> Everything's done. God willing. You
know, all these Gulf Arab states decide,
hey, let's invest money in Iran. Let's
change hearts and minds.
Okay. Avoided a gigantic apocalyptic
scenario. What What could be done? Like
if we have information, who who has this
information and why are they holding on
to this information? And what do you
know the the how put off story?
>> No. So how put off who used to work for
NASA um said that he was brought in
during the Bush administration where um
they were going they they were proposing
uh disclosure and they were saying this
is what we're they were saying they're
saying we have biological remains and we
have physical crafts we're proposing
disclosure and they brought in a bunch
of a bunch of uh thought leaders uh
different disciplines different schools
of thought and they said I want you to
compile a list of pros and cons and put
a numerical value on what how this is
going to affect society how is this
going to affect religion how's this
going to affect government how's this
going to affect economy all these
different things and when they compiled
this list every one of them had more in
the con than in the pro and they decided
against disclosure because of that
>> now if that's the case, what are we
talking about? Like, who has this
information and what is this
information? I mean, if that wasn't just
a thought experiment,
>> yeah,
>> if they weren't really just [ __ ] with
these people, which I don't understand
why they would do that, but let's assume
they what is known
>> and why would they prevent that
information from getting out?
>> Well, that's
that's a big if.
>> Have you seen the movie The Age of
Disclosure?
>> I have not.
>> Okay. Well, a lot of people um including
intelligence officers, different people
in the government are in this
documentary. And one of the things that
they're saying is part of the problem
with all this is if they have had these
programs going on for so long, that
means they've been misappropriating
funds and they've been lying to
Congress. So all these people that were
involved in I've heard this argument.
Yeah, I've heard this argument. Yeah. So
Lulu Alzando and all these other people
have said, "Look, what we're gonna need
is mass amnesty for people that are
involved in this. It's the only way
you're ever really going to get to the
bottom of it."
>> Problem with that is if you've got
unlimited money and you've got
misappropriation of funds and lying to
Congress, I guarantee
some of that money has gone to places it
shouldn't have gone.
>> 100% 100%.
>> Like it always does.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, like it's always very
hard to engage in these like super
generic super general I should say
hypotheticals because
you know like yeah if if look we've got
remains of space aliens and we're hiding
them then there are a million other sort
of there are a million possibilities for
that what would explain it how it would
have happened I am skeptical that's true
and the reason I'm skeptical that it's
true that we have the physical remains
is not because I don't think that's
something that like is physically
possible or that the government like the
government's willing to do and able to
do a lot of a lot of crazy stuff in our
history and the history of all
governments.
I am skeptical of the competence. I
actually made this point to Dave when we
talked and I I think he's a very
interesting guy. Um so I don't mean to
insult him or say I disagree with him
about everything, but I made this point
to Dave when we talked. It's like if we
have literal space alien remains in the
custody of the United States government,
there is no way that that wouldn't get
leaked that wouldn't leak out in some
way.
>> Well, it has leaked out anecdotally.
>> Well, that's I guess that's the
counterargument, but I think it would
Jackie Gleason story.
>> No, I want to hear that. But but like
with cell phones and every way that we
have like it's plausible to me you could
hide that in an era where you have to
have a giant camera the size of these
antlers in order to take a photo of
something. But dude I can take you know
like you have cameras now that are like
literally this tiny. That's the part
that I'm skeptical of that we're hiding
that. Let me push back against that cuz
you know that if you have any sort of
top secret like if you go into a skiff
>> like there's no way you're bringing
cameras in there. You're you're Look,
when I came here to this podcast studio,
[laughter]
they had a dog my trunk and it's your
studio.
>> Pop my trunk. Yeah.
>> Like I'm going to blow up my own studio.
>> Yeah. But okay. So you know what I'm
saying? But the Okay. The
counter-argument though is they check
that stuff on you. They don't check that
stuff on everybody.
>> Everybody here. They did.
>> Everybody here. But I'm saying all you
need all you need is one official with
like the highest security clearance.
Now, okay, you're right. Certain devices
like give eminate signals that they can
pick up on Bluetooth and all that [ __ ]
but like but to have access to go into a
room where they have these things. If
they did have these things, I guarantee
you they're going to make sure no one's
got anything. They could easily scan you
to make sure that you don't have any
kind of electronics, any kind of camera,
any kind of recording device.
>> That's not hard.
>> I mean,
>> especially if you've got something
squirreled away at Area 51.
>> In the next two and a half years, we're
going to run this experiment cuz I got
two and a half more years as VP. And I
swear to you, if there are little green
men like body remains,
>> text me, please.
>> Well, I'm not going to No, [laughter]
I'm not going to text you. I'm going to
try to smuggle a camera and get a photo
of these things. [laughter] Well, how
would you, the vice president of the
United States of America, have to have a
camera smuggled in to do that?
>> Well, maybe I wouldn't, but again, I
I've seen it.
>> Do you think that you have the kind of
authority like look, let's imagine you
find out that at Wright Patterson Air
Force Base, they have some
secure facility somewhere. Maybe it's
not there. Maybe it's maybe they've kept
it under wraps. Maybe it's in the
mountain somewhere. Yeah.
>> And you find out that this thing exists.
Do you think it's as simple as you could
just go out and tell everybody or do you
think that you get briefed on the
implications of what would happen if you
disclosed all this information?
>> Well, I would definitely get briefed on
the implications of what would happen
>> and they would probably tell you, hey,
you have to [ __ ] people.
>> Yeah, but dude, I'm not uh
>> You're not going to [ __ ] people?
>> I Well, look, I have I have many skills
as a politician in some vices, but like
one of them is I'm just not a a good
liar.
>> Well, then they're not going to show it
to you. You [laughter] just [ __ ] up.
You just [ __ ] up on this podcast by
saying that
what I
>> show it to the ladies on the view.
That's [laughter] that's
>> that's right.
>> The intellectual leaders of our world.
>> Trust me, they show it to the ladies of
the view. It will be said two hours two
hours later. Anyway, maybe they show it
to them just so that no one will believe
it.
>> I do want to look into this stuff. I'm
just telling you
I have not yet seen the evidence that we
have. Certainly extraterrestrial
remains, but there's a lot of stuff
before extraterrestrial remains is also
interesting. Like the flight patterns in
some of these videos are super weird.
>> Um,
>> well, the Commander David Fraver stuff
is bananas. It goes from 50,000 ft above
sea level to sea level in like a second
>> to what people say, right? Like because
one of the arguments I've heard, for
example, is, you know, could this just
be a visual or on the camera or
something like that. Okay, that that
sounds to me plausible. I'm not an
expert in cameras, but then what the
pilots their reaction to it, it's not
like they're looking at a visual lure on
a camera. It's like they're looking at
something else that's really, really
weird and difficult to explain given
what they know about, you know, physics
and aeronautical engineering, etc. So,
anyway, I am fascinated by this, but I
just don't want to tell people like, oh,
I've uncovered the the truth or I
haven't because I haven't looked at it
yet.
>> Right. Well, I would, if I was you, that
would be the first thing I did.
storm right in there and go,
>> "Let's talk about tax policy."
[laughter]
>> Is that what you want to talk about? No,
>> we could talk about tax policy.
>> Way more interesting.
>> Um, I would want to know. I mean, I
think the world wants to know. I think
it would fundamentally change our
understanding of what it means to be a
living organ.
>> Okay. What do you think? Like what is
your you know more about this than I do.
>> I don't think we're alone.
>> But okay.
>> I don't think we're alone. I just don't
understand what it is.
>> Okay. I don't know if it's
>> So, you don't have like a strong view
about what it is. You're just
>> curious. I don't have any data, right?
So, I don't have any proof. So, I I
believe Commander David Fraver, I
believe Ryan Graves, he was a fighter
pilot. They said that when they upgraded
their um their equipment on these
fighter jets in 2014, all of a sudden
they started seeing these things that
were staying completely motionless at
120 knot winds and they were a cube
inside of a sphere, a black cube inside
of some sort of
>> Yeah. Well, okay. So, this is a I know
you've talked to Eric Weinstein. Yes.
And um you know, I haven't talked to you
about this lately, but one of the things
that Eric sort of kind of persuaded me
of a couple of years ago was
>> it's Weinstein. They get very sensitive.
>> Weinstein.
>> Okay. U got it. Eric Weinstein. Good
[laughter] thought.
Speaking of pedophiles, I guess Harvey
was a pedophile. He was He was He had
many sins, but not that one.
>> Candace Owens says he's innocent.
>> Oh, interesting. Okay. [laughter]
>> Or not um
>> not guilty of everything that they said
he was. So,
okay, Eric Weinstein, this is probably
three, four years ago, persuades me of
this actually. Not, it's an interesting
theory. His his argument is in the same
way that I would say, what's the
difference between an extraterrestrial
and an angel or a demon depending on its
intentions from the perspective of a
human in 2026? His argument would be
what's the difference between a space
alien and a human being but just a human
being with super advanced technology,
right?
>> And so I don't know if this is still his
view, but he kind of was he was like,
let's say you had human beings who just
were super scientifically advanced. Like
what we know of the laws of physics as I
understand it is that light speed is
sort of the upper limit of what one of
our spaceships could travel. Okay? You
can't go any faster than the speed of
light. Well, that's a problem because
everything else that could support of
extraterrestrial life is much is many
many many many light years away. Okay.
So his argument to me again back in the
day was if you figured out a new physics
in the same way that you had an
understanding shift from Newtonian
physics to Einsteinian physics. If you
have a new understanding of physics that
allows you to travel much faster than
the speed of light, you could just have
human beings either from a different
planet or maybe they went to Mars and
started their own civilization and then
that you know that that got old and they
at this point they are many millions of
light years away but they can move
through space and time in a way that is
quite literally like divine from our
perspective or space aliens but they're
just human beings. It could be human
beings from the future.
>> If time travel is possible, why?
>> But it also it also we know that life
exists on Earth. So if life exists on
Earth, the Earth is a planet. There are
hundreds of billions of stars that have
hundreds [snorts] of billions of
planets.
>> We have no idea how many planets there
are in the known universe that could
potentially support life. And if these
things live on these planets and they
live far longer than we have, like if
you showed
a nuclear bomb to someone from a hundred
years ago, they would say, "That's the
craziest [ __ ] thing I've ever seen in
my life." You show them a show them a
reactor, show them a cell phone, show
them that television.
>> It's like my dog with a light switch.
Right.
>> Just be able to FaceTime someone in New
Zealand. Like, how what is that? What
are you doing?
>> That's right. now advance that forward
one million years and then you know
instead of using propulsion you are
instead manipulating space time.
>> So I so that's exactly right and one of
the things I've talked with Elon about
this and Elon is obviously a super smart
dude but I I've never heard like a super
satisfying answer to this. One of the
things that worries me like I I want
humans to be a multilanetary species. I
want us to go to Mars and set up a
colony. And you know, like that that's
sort of I love humanity. I want it to
continue. And
the problem with with space travel that
I have again not heard a satisfactory
solution to is, you know, when we're
outside of the Earth's gravity,
our genes, like our our our actual DNA
seems to not function as well when it's
not on Earth style gravity, which makes
sense, right? we developed
>> in these conditions with this gravity.
>> So whenever you have somebody who goes
to the international space station for
like three months or six months and they
come back and they are totally jacked up
because like literally the cells in
their body are starting to like
discombobulate in response to a
lowgravity environment.
>> I don't like we have to figure out a
solution to that problem. that that to
me is sort of the most interesting part
of space travel of going to Mars or
setting up a colony on another planet is
if you set up a colony on Mars but and
what it takes you like two years to get
there and two years to get back or
something like that, right?
>> But in that time you've gone from a
functioning adult healthy to like dead
if you're in space for four years. that
that that part of space travel is very
fascinating to me and I I don't know
that I've heard any satisfactory
solution to it yet.
>> I don't think conventionally there is a
satisfactory solution. But
>> if you're talking about manipulating
spaceime and not traditional propulsion,
>> you probably could figure that out.
>> You could manipulate [laughter] you
could essentially contain this
environment in exactly the same way it
is. Yeah. And travel to somewhere else
with that environment. So this is the
idea of them living under the surface of
the the ocean.
>> I see. I see. How can they live in the
depths of the ocean? Well, because they
have a completely contained environment.
>> Sure. Sure.
>> I mean, who knows?
>> Yeah.
>> It's all just nonsense.
>> Maybe they figured out how I can eat
like steak and grater ice cream and have
the blood profile of eating, you know,
chicken and salad.
>> Well, I don't think chicken and salad is
the way to go. I'm a steak guy. I think
uh just eat a little bit of ice cream
every now and then. By the way, ice
cream is one of the very best desserts
for you because it contains fat.
>> It's got a lot of fat and protein.
That's right. That's right.
>> A little bit of sugar, but it's all uh
it's a moderation thing.
>> That's right.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Well,
>> anybody who want to eat ice cream is a
communist. [laughter]
>> There's nothing wrong with ice cream.
Ice cream. Speaking of communist,
>> the Democratic Socialists of America,
that's actually what they do at their
events is they throw the ice cream into
the Boston Harbor instead of the tea.
>> Ah, yeah. Those [ __ ] people scare me.
>> [laughter]
>> I I'm really concerned that people think
that's a good idea and that they think
that socialism just hasn't been done
correctly.
>> That drives me nuts cuz I think a lot of
like really well-intentioned, really
kind and empathetic young people think
that that's the way to go. And I do not
think they understand the dangers of
this ideology because it always leads to
one thing. It leads to a very powerful
military government that controls the
population. Period. End of discussion.
And if you if you play it out, it is
literally the only way that can get
people to give up their money. Yes. It's
the only way they can get them to give
up their property. And when you're
hearing like Mum Donnie talk about
freezing rents and taking bad landlords
and then confiscating their property,
you're like,
>> do you This is step one of [snorts]
what's happened in every communist
dictatorship throughout history. This is
what happened in North Korea. Give the
government the land and we'll make sure
that no one ever has to worry about
food. What a great idea. Look how it
turned out. So uh I don't I don't know
who said this but you know the whole
argument of communism is that you seize
the means of production but because the
means of production the most powerful
means of production is the human mind
you ultimately have to get into
totalitarianism. You have to have
control of that most fundamental element
of of the human person.
>> You also take away motivation and
there's a thing that people don't like
which is extreme wealth. But you have to
understand that if it wasn't for the
motivation of extreme wealth, you would
not have an iPhone.
>> So here's
>> wouldn't have these things.
>> Okay. So here's here's let me give you
my uh my my Christian answer to this.
And it's a good plug for my my new book,
Communion, Finding My Way Back to Faith,
>> not to be confused with Whitley Strive's
book, Communion, which is all about
aliens. Okay. Did you know that?
>> No. In coincidence, Joe. Pull up. Pull
up the the the pull up the cover. Pull
up the cover of the good drivers. all
your listeners to buy.
>> The problem is like you didn't know
about this book. I would have told you
to come up with a different title.
>> Seriously
book.
>> There we go. Okay. So, we want that is
wild.
>> And then there's another one. My first
communion. It's about
>> Okay. That's like a kids book. But yeah,
we want people to buy the second one.
The one that says JD Vance on it. But
okay. So this is one of the things I
talk about in the book is like there's a
there is a Christian idea of political
economy that's actually been lost in
American politics where it's it's like
we think of it as libertarianism, the
hardcore free market versus socialism or
communism.
And there actually is a third way that
has existed in pretty much all Christian
economic thinking going back 2,000 years
ago, which is that yeah, extreme wealth
inequality does create problems, but you
still got to have private property. You
still have to have a state that protects
private property rights. And there's a
way to balance these things that I think
we've sort of lost in our in our country
a little bit. And when I when I like,
okay, let me play devil's advocate with
with the DSA because I think that their
ideas are crazy and I think that you're
right. They will lead to a very
totalitarian place. I'm not defending a
single thing that they say, particularly
their hatred of ice cream. What I am
what I [snorts] am saying is
I and and maybe this is just sort of the
way my mind works. I tend to be a little
bit more empathetic. Why are young
people attracted to socialism in 21st
century America? One of the best
interviews that Charlie Kirk ever gave,
it was right before he died. It was an
episode that he did with Tucker Carlson
where he talked about the fact that if
you don't give young people a stake, if
you don't give them ownership, if you
don't give them a sense of the American
dream and of possibility in the future,
they're going to become socialists.
Like, if if you have a zero sum
environment for a 25-year-old in this
country, they're going to start to say,
"The only way for me to get anything is
to take away from somebody else." So we
have to get away from like the zero sum
thinking. I think that's like the root
cause of this. But I I also think that
look we've ran an experiment in the
United States of America and you know I
think that we have we have undone that
experiment taken in a different
direction in the Trump administration
where ship all the factories overseas
and let low-wage foreigners make our
stuff. That was a bad deal for American
workers. Again, it takes a long time to
reverse that trend, but I think it's one
of the best parts of Trump
administration policy is you do see that
trend starting to reverse. This idea
that nobody should own anything. We
should all become renters, whereas what
we're trying to do is lowest lower
interest rates. You actually have seen
housing costs stabilize in the country
over the last year and a half, frankly,
because of immigration. We had way too
many people going after way too many
homes. You close the border. This is one
of the reasons why rent and housing
costs have stabilized a little bit. So,
I think that unless you go down that
pathway of allowing young Americans to
own something, socialism is the
inevitable outcome. Do I think that's
good? No. But I I really do worry, and I
I see this frankly more in my own party
than I do on the other side. There is
this revulsion to socialism that's
totally justified without enough
thinking about how did we get here in
the first place. And if man if we don't
fix that and I I would say if we don't
get back to a more Christian sort of
understanding of of economics socialism
is the alternative like that that is
where this goes. People don't own
anything rigged.
>> Exactly. And in some ways Joe the game
is rigged.
>> Yes. the I mean if if you look at
>> I mean again I I just I think so much of
housing because
you know this happened I think it was
during the presidential campaign maybe
it was right before but I was I was
talking to some family members over
Thanksgiving and you know just a sort of
a younger friend of of my wife's they
were like five or six years behind us
they were just about to get married and
this this young woman successful
engineer makes a higher salary than most
Americans. She just sort of like tossed
out there that, you know, when her
parents' generation was coming up, it
was like possible to own a house and to
raise a family and not be worried that
much about things. And my thought was,
okay, you're an engineer. You make way
more money than 75% of people your age,
maybe 90% of people your age, and you
think that it is like this ridiculous
unachievable objective to have literally
what your parents had, which is a decent
job, a nice house, and a and a safe
place like at that literally that same
that same dinner like another guy
another friend of my wife was talking
about this and he you know South Indian
family grew up you know his parents
immigrated he was born and raised in San
Diego and he was like you know when I
was growing up in Oceanside. This is
like a suburb of San Diego where there a
lot of Marines live in Oceanside. It's
close to Camp Pendleton. Said when I was
growing up,
all of my like the kids that I played
with that I rode bo bikes with, that I
was, you know, playing street hockey
with and football with, all of those
kids were the sons of enlisted Marines
in Oceanside, California. And then we
went and looked at like Oceanside,
California rents. Again, this is a
couple years ago, rents and housing
prices. Like every house was north of a
million dollars on the street this guy
grew up in. And listen, Marine, frankly,
most Marine officers could not afford to
buy a million-dollar house. So, like,
does the socialism thing scare me? Yes.
Is it the wrong solution? Yes. But one
thing I try to persuade my fellow
Republicans of is socialism is the
alternative if we don't have a pathway
to give people a sense that the system
is not rigged and that the American
dream is attainable. That's like our
job. That's what we have to do. I'm not
saying Rome was built in a day. It's not
going to be easy to undo some of these
economic trends. But man, we ran the
experiment. We ran the experiment of
offshoring all of our industrial jobs,
of becoming a services and finance
economy and allowing Wall Street to come
in and buy every asset of modern life
and turn it into an investable, you
know, line goes up asset. And what has
that done? It's created a generation of
kids who kind of are attracted to
socialism.
>> We have to fix that problem.
>> Well, kids that do feel, and you're
correct, and I I I agree with you, the
system is rigged. Kids feel like there
are no options other than to burn it
down. Yes. And that's the problem
because they feel very frustrated.
>> And this is part of our job is to
provide an option that isn't burn it
down, but is not just doing the same
things that we've done for the past. But
they're also terrified about the future
because of AI because they feel like
jobs are going to be taken away and
there will be no place for people that
have education in very specific [snorts]
avenues like very specific jobs are
going to just be irrelevant.
>> Yeah.
>> They're going to be completely wiped out
by AI.
>> There is a huge fear over this. So I let
me kind of give my own my own spin on
this.
>> Yes. I was talking to a CEO not of an AI
company but of a tech company and he's
one of the few CIO CEOs that's sort of
right or center and I was like well you
know what do you think do you think AI
is going to come and take all the jobs
and his basic take was the the real
historical analogy is the industrial
revolution and you know did the
industrial revolution displace or change
a lot of jobs yes it also created a lot
of jobs that didn't exist before so he
was like my concern here is not that 50%
of Americans are going to be unable to
find a job. There will be some
displacement, some sort of churn in the
labor market, but that's not the main
issue. He said the main issue, if you go
back to the industrial revolution, is
that there was a lot of demand for
workers, but the inequality in the
country got completely out of whack.
Like this is the era of the robber
barons. And then the robber barons in
both Europe and the United States led to
fascism. It led to communism again to
this point about giving people an
option. if you don't give them a good
option, then it leads to fascism and
communism.
>> Now, there's this fascinating encyclical
um written by by Pope Leo I 13th. I'll
send it to you. It's one of the the best
things that I think has ever been
written by a Christian leader where it's
it's written in the late 19th century.
And the basic argument of it is that in
the age of industrial churn, there has
to be a middle way between
six-year-olds working on the factory
floor and socialism. And part of that
solution is to give workers a sort of
say in what's going on. Give normal
people some power in this in this in
this system. And I think that's the
thing we have to figure out with AI. I
won't say that I have all the solutions
because I haven't. But I think the
fundamental question is how do you
ensure that normal people have some
control over this? control over what's
their kids are seeing, control over, you
know, the the the economic forces that
are being unleashed by AI, some
certainty that they're not going to wake
up in a world where they can't buy a
home, but some other guy owns 35
mansions, right? That that to me is is
the fundamental challenge of AI is it's
going to unleash a lot of wealth
creation, but if that wealth creation
all goes to some some segment of people,
you're going to have communism. like
that that is that is the choice before
us is a lot of wealth being created
that's good by the way I like I like
wealth being created but if if you don't
ensure that there's some broader
prosperity from that wealth creation
like we have run this experiment before
and it leads to communism
>> right so if the system is [ __ ] how do
we unfuck it
>> so [sighs and gasps]
>> you have a magic wand
>> I I mean look I I this is what I'm I'm
saying I'm being honest with you that I
I don't have a magic wand I I think
there are a few things that that that we
should sort of take from this I think.
Okay. The first is that we should give
workers a real say at the bargaining
table. Okay. So,
what really worries me about AI is the
is the fact that private sector unions
have largely disappeared from the United
States of America. There are a couple of
exceptions, but if you go back to like
why did the United States and Britain
weather um the industrial revolution
better than literally every other
western country? I think you could make
a good argument. Strong religious
institutions. Right now, we have very
weak religious institutions. Number two,
I think you could say strong worker
participation institutions and not just
private sector labor unions. That was a
big piece of it. But people don't
realize that, you know, Hollywood major
studios would actually work with
community groups and churches to sort of
help like develop content. Now, this was
an organic. This was a natural
cooperation. And this wasn't mandated by
some law, but where they'd go and say,
"Help us produce content that actually
speaks to your membership, that speaks
to your community." And there was this
sense of participation in American
society that I think we've lost. And and
that's the thing that I think that we
have to rebuild a little bit. It's
interesting that, you know, the Trump
administration, the president
personally, certainly me have been
accused of being too pro- labor for
Republicans. But one of the reason why
I'm pro- labor as a Republican is
because, and I'm not saying unions are
perfect. Some of them have very serious
problems. Like I'm opened about this,
like the alternative may very well be
communism in the United States of
America. Not next year, but down the
road, you've got to give people a seat
at the table. And I think that's that's
one answer to the question. Um I I think
a second answer to the question is is
competition. So if if you go back again
to what worked and what was broken about
the industrial revolution,
hyper monopolist style companies that
had way too much power. I mean Teddy
Roosevelt famously talked about how um
you know some of the steel trusts were
more powerful than the United States
government. So you could vote your vote
didn't matter as much because the
corporations were more powerful than the
government. I think reigning that in
making sure that like how do you what's
the most obvious way to give normal
people participation it's democracy but
if a single corporation has monopolized
an entire space then you don't have a
real a real democracy unless you reign
in the power of that company and I think
that that is another big risk with AI
it's that we have a hyper monopouist who
dominates the space and then influences
the government influences the nonprofit
sector
and then real people are effectively cut
out of the bargain. So again, I'm not
going to pretend sitting here that I
have all the solutions. I think about
this more than almost anything else
right now. But it's the solution has to
be giving normal people actual authority
over their own lives.
>> But how can the government get involved
in those steps? Like what could be done
on a federal level to implement that?
Well, [sighs] you know, I I think one of
the things and and we've we've looked at
legislation along these lines, we
haven't yet pushed anything, but you
know, one problem with the 20 with with
like the private sector labor union. One
reason why you Democrats will say you
private unions are at super low
participation rates because the
government is, you know, been anti-UN.
There's like some element of truth to
that. But the reality is that a lot of
workers don't see the utility in joining
a union because it's like in a lot of
ways it's a 20th century institution
when you need a 21st century
institution. So I think updating the
modern union to be to make more sense in
the 21st century I think that's that's a
part of the story. Um you know I think I
think antitrust
>> how would you do that? Well, a friend of
mine, his name is Orin Cass, actually,
very fascinating guy, sort of a
right-of-c center economic thinker. you
know, his his idea is that 20th century
labor law presupposes a sort of zero sum
conflict between the company and the
union and that where you've seen unions
actually thrive certain places in
Europe, it's a little bit more
cooperative and the the unions actually
have a little bit more power themselves
where they can negotiate with the
corporation with a little bit more
breadth and a little bit more freedom.
Whereas in the United States, we sort of
set a floor. we make we we create a very
small number of things the union can
actually negotiate over and so a lot of
people say well why would I join a union
why would I participate in it so
basically making the union a little bit
more cooperative which requires changing
the legal form of it I think that's
interesting I think antitrust is a huge
piece of the story now it's it's a
little early with AI because we don't
yet know which companies are dominant
but I think one of the big mistakes man
we made in the early 2000s is we should
have gone after the big tech companies
with antitrust like there is like a
trustbusting mechanism that exists in
the US government. We just didn't use
it. We're going to have to be willing to
use it in the 21st century.
>> And when it comes to unions, um what
like what what is wrong with the current
structure
um in in terms of what what power the
unions have to negotiate for for labor.
So let me look. So there's a concrete
example that that Orin uses all the
time. So in in some European countries,
you have a minimum wage, right? In some
European countries, the union can can
actually cut a deal with the employer to
where you pay a brand new employee less
than the minimum wage, then you pay a
more senior person higher than the
minimum wage. But in order to pay the
junior employee less than the minimum
wage, you have to provide them job
training and better benefits and so
forth. And so the idea is you turn the
employ for the first couple of years you
turn the company almost into an
educational institution but in order to
do that the union has to have
flexibility. That kind of arrangement is
effectively illegal in the United States
of America. So it's that you create the
ability for the union to be more
flexible in how it negotiates. You don't
set all the terms for it. You allow the
union to figure out what's in the best
interest of its membership. But people
are opposed like initially knee-jerk
reaction to lowering wages and even in
lowering minimum wage. I mean the most
people feel and I agree that minimum
wage is almost impossible to live off of
especially with
>> 100%. Yeah. That it is but but but what
these unions are not asking for I mean
you have to kind of trust the labor
representation of the people to sort of
make the right arrangement for them. And
so it's not, hey, let's create a minimum
wage or a wage floor that's lower than
the minimum wage. It's what about taking
for the first year of a person coming
into the labor market where, you know,
they work an internship for zero
dollars, right, at a at a company. Why
don't we allow our workers to work
effectively an internship, get the
training they need, get the benefits
that they need, and then join the
workforce full-time at a much higher
wage? The the idea is that you trust the
union to come up with this or or the
labor organization, whatever you want to
call it, is you actually give the union
the ability to sort of negotiate over
this stuff on behalf of its members. You
don't assume the way the United States
we do it is we we basically take all
that authority away from the union
itself and we try to settle this stuff
at the level of the government. But
again, where unions have been more
successful, where they actually have
higher membership and participation
rates, what you see is the the these
organizations actually have much greater
flexibility and that ends up meaning
that more people want to join. That
means these organizations have more
power and then that means they can
figure out the arrangement that works
best for their membership. So you kind
of have to trust people. You have to
trust that people are willing to do this
thing um for for their own for their own
benefit. And you know, so long as
they've got the right authority and so
long as they've got the right tools, you
give you kind of trust people to do
what's in their best interest in these
organizations to do what's in the best
interest of their membership.
>> Well, the the problem that people would
have with that is that corporations have
a responsibility to their shareholders
and they always want to make the most
money possible and they have to make
more money next quarter than they made
this quarter. And one of the ways they
do that is by paying people less.
>> But that's why I think that you have to
give workers some some seat at the
bargaining table. There there there is a
there is a theory of like economics that
dominated in the late 20th century
America which is that basically that you
know the labor market was entirely
efficient and maybe the corporation
didn't want to pay their workers more
money but they would be forced to pay
their workers more money purely because
if they didn't do that then they
wouldn't be able to get enough workers.
Now, I do think that there's an argument
for like there are all of these ways why
we should give workers more bargaining
power. One of them and we've spent a lot
of time talking about labor
organizations and that's important. Man,
one of the reasons why I'm such an
immigration hawk is because it is really
important not to flood the country with
low-wage immigrants, right? Because if
you give a corporation a choice between
a low-wage immigrant and a native worker
who's going to require, by the way, a
native worker of any race, they're going
to be forced to pay the native worker
more if there's not a pool of low-wage
workers to to go to. And this is like a
consistent finding in the economics
literature, but also just common sense
that when you flood the country with
low-wage immigrants, this is why I think
the DSA types are a little full of [ __ ]
when they talk about helping normal
people. If you want to help a normal
person, don't provide a corporation nine
low-wage migrants to compete against
them when they're bargaining for wages.
You actually give workers more power
when you have a more restricted
immigration policy.
>> Well, this is that's the that that's
that's where the real con is, right?
Because a lot of Yeah. You've told me
that you had a conversation with uh
someone who was at the head of some
corporation that was upset that they
were trying to shut down illegal
immigration because he said it's
>> head of a hotel chain.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Cuz he said basically I want to be
able to pay my workers less money and
it's very hard because the native
workers expect higher wages.
>> It's crazy. I mean there there dude
there's there's this story from a few
years ago. It was the New York Times. It
was like unintentionally hilarious. And
it's talking about a,
you know, why Apple would choose to
manufacture in Asia over the United
States of America. And it's talking
about how, you know, the American
workers and it's it's almost kind of
judgy towards the American workers. It's
like, well, you know, the American
workers want to go home and see their
kids and have dinner with their kids.
And it's like, by the way, you go to the
Foxcon factory in Apple in China, the
Foxcon factory that develops products
for Apple and China, and what do you
see? You literally see suicide nets
around the top of the building because,
yeah, the workers work 72 hours a week
and they sleep in little apartments four
to a bedroom, but they also are so
miserable, you have to take steps to
prevent them from killing themselves.
So, you know, what I want out of
American life is a little bit more
dignity, a little bit more, oh, you
know, yeah, I can I can I can afford to
feed my family. I can also go home and
actually watch my kids' baseball game.
And that balance, I think, if you're
looking at it from a pure profit motive,
you know, maybe the corporation isn't
going to think like that, which is why
you have to give the people real power
to push back and advocate for their own
interests. I think a lot of people in
this country, if they had to choose,
especially people that have money, if
they had to choose between a phone that
was manufactured in America where people
were paid a very good wage and had
benefits and you have an iPhone that has
a little American flag on the back and
you have one that doesn't. I think a lot
of people would buy the one with the
American flag on the back because
>> just they would feel better about their
purchase. They'd feel I feel weird when
I'm holding a phone [laughter] and I
know that someone was working in some
factory in some foreign country working
15 hours a day and and being paid
nothing.
>> That's right. I think that's true of our
food, by the way, too.
>> Yeah.
>> They they'd much rather it be, you know,
made locally. They're willing to pay a
little bit more so long as it's it's
healthier and it's made locally. There
obviously are exceptions to every rule,
but I I do again I think that we have
run the experiment where we just try to
do everything with low-wage foreigners,
whether they're in the United States via
illegal immigration or whether they're
outside the United States via offshoring
and outsourcing. And what it has led to
is I think a society where socialism is
a bit on the rise. And one of our jobs
in the administration, I think about
this all the time, is how do you make
things I'm not saying we're perfect and
I'm not saying there isn't a lot of work
to do because there is like we were left
in quite a hole by 40 years of bad
policy. People always talk about the
Biden administration inflation.
Yeah, the Biden administration inflation
was terrible. Got up to 9%. By the way,
I think today's CPI report is you had
deflation in the United States. We
actually had prices coming down which is
good because the Iran war gas prices
came down. But like
>> gas prices have come down now because of
the Iran war.
>> No, no, no. Compared to where they were
a month ago,
>> right?
>> So they're they're not down from the
beginning of the war, but they're down
from where they were a month ago. So you
had a good CPI report, uh a consumer
price inflation report today. My my
point is, yes, I don't ever get to the
9% inflation of the B administration.
Yes, the Trump administration has had a
much better record on inflation than the
Biden administration. nothing close to
9% even in our worst month. But some of
this stuff is actually much longer term.
This is 40 years of failed bipartisan
leadership which has created really a
kind of shell corporation out of the
United States of America. We don't make
enough of our own stuff. We don't have
enough self-reliance. Our workers don't
have enough bargaining power. That has
led in a lot of ways, I think, to this
kind of socialism fervor. And we have to
keep fixing these problems. Again, I
think that we're going in the right
direction. Maybe people disagree, but
it's going to take years to fix this
problem. And if we don't, we are going
to end up with a socialist president in
this country.
>> I think it's also a narrative change.
And that the the narrative is stopping
immigration is cruelty. Correct. And
you're you're you're racist or
xenophobic and that uh we should just
instead give these people citizenship.
And it's it's not a coincidence that I
mean like what we dealt with over the
last four years was insane where they
just opened the border and not just
encouraged people to come across but
facilitated it helped them got them on
Medicaid got them on social security got
people the they told people do you have
a bad back okay well you're permanent
disability and you get free money put
them in a hotel give them a phone like
that's crazy and then move them to blue
states and then you realize that that
has a direct impact on congressional
seats
>> because of the census which is also
nuts. The census should count citizens.
>> It should only count citizens but it
doesn't and that actually steals
congressional representation away from
areas that have lower illegal
immigration, right?
>> Which is its own its own problem. So
yeah, it it's it's the thing that I
don't understand about the Democratic
Socialists of America. And obviously I
disagree with a lot of their ideas, but
like if you go back to Caesar Chavez,
one of the original like founding
fathers of the American workers rights
movement, okay? He was a hardcore
restrictionist on immigration because he
thought that the bosses would bring in
low-wage immigrants to compete against
his workers and that would drive down
their wages. And yet the DSA, which says
they care about the wages of workers, is
quite literally like an open borders
organization. So I I tend to think that
it's it's all BS that they are actually
pursuing a set of policies that are good
for
that are like corporations care way more
about open borders than they do about
any other policy the DSA cares about. So
while these people say that they're
trying to fight for workers and they're
trying to fight for the working man, the
actual end result of DSA policy is to
flood the country with low-wage
immigrants which will destroy the middle
class in this country. In fact, we have
run this experiment for decades now and
we have a much weaker middle class than
we did before it started. And I think
this is a part of the the problem this
country has that there's this narrative
uh Republicans are cruel and they're
anti-worker and that they're anti- lower
class people or lower middle class
people.
>> Yep.
>> That narrative has to someone has to do
a better job of messaging.
>> I'm trying to, man. I'm trying to. But,
you know, it's it's one of those things
that it's it took a long while for it to
set in. It's going to take a long while
to to get out of it. But what I just I
try to remind people is that anybody who
actually cares about the safety of your
community is going to care about not
empowering police brutality, but
empowering the good cops to do what they
need to do. Anybody who cares about law
and order is going to want to throw
violent criminals in jail, not close
down the prison. Anybody who cares about
your wages and your safety is going to
want to control the border. So I I I
just all I can think to do is to remind
people that I'm not saying Republicans
are perfect and you know I have
disagreements of course within my own
party all the time but fundamentally our
party is right now pursuing a much
better set of policies when it comes to
safety of your home, your wages, your
ability to keep more of your money. I
just got to keep preaching that message
and you know the chips fall where they
may. And if you just look at the result
of what you see in these cities where
they don't enforce crime, where they
don't enforce
immigration laws, they provide sanctuary
states, you see disasters over and over
and over again.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, and I I don't understand
>> exactly
>> why people who are voting for these
things can't see that. They can't see
that the results have been catastrophic
year after year. They keep getting
worse.
>> And the idea of voting a new better
person to do the same thing is just
crazy.
>> Yeah, it it's it's totally crazy to me,
too. I think part of it is we haven't
done a good enough job of actually going
to some of these places. Part of it is
that it is shifting and sometimes these
shifts just take a long time. If you
look, the Republican party under Trump's
leadership is way more workingass, way
more middle class than the Republican
party of 20 years ago. So these things
are starting to shift. But the public
safety thing is very interesting to me
because like one of the promises of
America is that every man, woman, and
child, rich or poor, black or white,
deserves public safety. Like it every
rich person ever has had public safety.
Every rich person ever has been able to
afford some security guard to make sure
that somebody who comes and tries to
steal their stuff or kidnap their kids,
they're protected against that. What
America did is we democratized public
safety. Every person gets to keep their
property. Every person gets to not be
stolen from. Every person gets to walk
down their neighborhood at night without
being being mugged. And obviously we
have imperfectly applied that. But what
the left has done over the last few
years. Why I think the crime thing is
it's not just a sort of public safety
thing. It's also a class thing is they
have made working people less safe. Like
if you look at my neighborhood, the
neighborhood that I my working-class
grandparents raised me in, it became
less safe over time. And really
workingclass neighborhoods had much
higher rates of violence, much higher
rates of carjackings and so forth. That
happened during Biden's administration.
>> That's not a coincidence.
>> No. Uh anything else? [laughter]
>> Anything else?
>> Go by Go by Go by Communion, Joe, and we
can we can talk about uh religion and
faith and the Ten Commandments next
time. But thanks for having me, man.
>> Thanks for being here. Appreciate it.
All right. [music] Wrap it up. Bye,
everybody. Great.
[music]
Hey. Hey.
Ask follow-up questions or revisit key timestamps.
The discussion covers a range of topics, starting with the surreal experience of a UFC cage fight held at the White House, including unique weather events and fight outcomes. It then transitions into a broader critique of outrage culture in politics and social media, highlighting how controversial comments by figures like Josh Hokit and comedians are often met with performative reactions. The conversation delves into perceived corruption and issues within California politics, specifically discussing election irregularities and the debate around voter ID laws. Foreign policy is addressed through the lens of US negotiations with Iran, the complexities of dealing with hardliners and pragmatists, and the influence of various parties, including Israel, on American decisions. The speakers also touch upon theories surrounding the Epstein files, the challenges of transparency, and the potential for blackmail. A fascinating segment explores the hosts' and guests' theories on UFOs and aliens, speculating whether they could be demons or hyper-advanced civilizations, and the government's limited transparency. Finally, the podcast examines economic and societal concerns such as the rise of socialism among young Americans, housing affordability, the impact of AI on jobs, and the role of labor unions and immigration policy in shaping the American dream.
Videos recently processed by our community