← The Charlie Kirk Show
The Charlie Kirk Show
Is the Electoral College DEI? + Other Questions at the University of Pittsburgh with Vivek Ramaswamy
00:36:09
Loading summary
Transcript221 lines
- [00:00]
Charlie Kirk
Hey, everybody. Enjoy this episode. Become a member. Members.charliekirk.com that is members.charliekirk. com email us. As always, freedomarlykirk.com and become a member to support this program. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go.
- [00:14]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
- [00:21]
Brandon
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
- [00:24]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa.
- [00:35]
Charlie Kirk
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives. And we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble gold investments@noblegold investments.com that is noblegold investments.com. it's where I buy all of my gold. Go to noblegold investments.com.
- [01:12]
Astro
Hello. I have a disagreement with you guys. I believe that the Electoral College is unjust and should be abolished. And Mr. Ramaswamy, I believe since you ran for president, I would like to hear from you first.
- [01:27]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Sure. So I think this is a common. I know this is near and dear to Charlie's heart. Oh, okay. Let's start with that. Well, I think that is a great question, Astro. I like that. Let's start with that. So I'm make sure I'm responding the question, what is the definition of justice?
- [01:43]
Astro
Okay, so we talk a lot about, like, DEI programs and that sort of thing, and people being, you know, unjustly put into these, like, positions. I believe that the Electoral College is DEI for the Republican Party, where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the presidency because of the Electoral College because it empowers rural states more by giving them the electoral votes.
- [02:06]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Do you believe that the Senate is unjust?
- [02:09]
Astro
I believe the Senate needs to exist.
- [02:14]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Okay, so. Cause that's the whole principle, is that we don't just live in a direct democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. And that means a few things. First is it means that we are really a union of states. We're not just a random assemblage of geographic land masses called states that we call a union. That means something where part of it is direct representative democracy, but part of it is also making sure that states actually have a relative say in the process. That's how you get the Senate versus the House to balance it out. Same thing with respect to the history of the Electoral College. This is about making sure that we're being thoughtful about the step of who's actually the US President, while channeling the Democratic will through the manner enshrined in our Constitution. And here's the biggest difference between a Republican, a democracy. This is relevant to a lot of young people, is in a constitutional republic, it's not just about what you get, Right? In democracy, you get a vote. You think about what is it? What does it mean to be a citizen, about what you get in a constitutional republic, it's also about what you give. It's about your civic duty to your country. And I think that part of what our founding Fathers envisioned is we had voters who actually knew something about their country. You know, every legal immigrant who comes to this country has to pass a civics test before they can vote. Well, frankly, the sad truth is most voters would fail that if they took it today. That would make our Founding Fathers roll over in their graves. And so I think that we got to get beyond this idea that we're some kind of direct democracy. We're actually a republic where people have responsibilities and states actually have some level of distributed, say, to make sure that two cities in New York and California don't govern. Who actually leads the entire United States of America?
- [03:50]
Charlie Kirk
And I will. I will push back. Look at the current battleground states. The blackest state in the country is getting a lot of attention because of the Electoral College. Georgia, one of the most black states in the country. North Carolina is getting a lot of attention.
- [04:03]
Astro
Atlanta is one of the biggest metro areas in the country. It would get attention whether or not they had the 16 electoral college. Well, but the Republican Party has a cushion. They have states like Wyoming that nobody.
- [04:17]
Charlie Kirk
Wants to be consistent. First of all, 700,000Americans live there, so let's not talk down to our fellow citizens.
- [04:24]
Astro
Okay, but why does their vote. Right. Why does their vote go farther than mine? Who's from Texas?
- [04:30]
Charlie Kirk
Hold on a second. Rhode island and Hawaii are small, and that helps Democrats, right?
- [04:38]
Astro
Yeah, I think that's bad, too.
- [04:39]
Charlie Kirk
Okay, got it. But it doesn't just help Republicans. What it does is it requires candidates, as Vivek aptly put it, to have a preference on states. We are not a national project, first and foremost. We are a collection of sovereign states that come together as a national project. And the founders wanted a decentralized way of doing elections. And I think it's actually a really good thing that this state, which is incredibly diverse, very difficult to be able to win, will determine the entire election. I think Pennsylvania is a great picture of the country and you guys get a lot of attention because of it. Now you might. You say in Texas. Well, in Texas it actually might become a battleground state one day. The thing about the Electoral College is that certain battleground states rise and certain fall. Ohio used to be a battleground state, now Arizona is a battleground state. Georgia never used to be a battleground state. Now it is. Florida used to be. And so what the Electoral College does is it forces candidates to go into places outside of the coastal corridor and win over voters of the people that actually make the country work. Such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Michigan.
- [05:48]
Astro
It doesn't answer the question though, why somebody's vote and somewhere like wyoming, which has three votes for 70,000 people versus Texas, 700,000. 700,000 versus Texas 38 for 30 million. That doesn't make any sense.
- [06:02]
Charlie Kirk
That's actually proportional though. Because. It is proportional. Because. Okay, then would you get rid of Wyoming as statehood? To be consistent, should Wyoming exist as a state?
- [06:11]
Astro
Absolutely. Well, their vote should be the same as mine.
- [06:15]
Vivek Ramaswamy
So I got, I got a solution to this and it's policy.
- [06:18]
Astro
Electoral College.
- [06:18]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Well, it's not the one that I, that I made. It's the solution that our founding fathers made, which is that if we don't like that the United States of America, we got a way to change it. Yeah, it's a constitutional amendment.
- [06:29]
Astro
So you agree with me.
- [06:30]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I don't agree with you because I wouldn't vote for it. But if your view is that this anti Democratic.
- [06:35]
Astro
I love my.
- [06:36]
Vivek Ramaswamy
There's a way to change it. If three quarters of people in this country wanted to change it, that would change in an instant. And so there's a mechanism to go through it. So just like the gentleman earlier who was founding a movement, you know, there could be a movement that says we want a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, but they haven't managed to convince enough people in this country that it's worth it. And the reason why is there was actually a justification for it turns out that most people, when they think about it, actually do land where Charlie and I do on a popular vote basis across the country. That wouldn't be a weighted vote, by the way. So you're talking about actually overturning it through the constitutional amendment. Then Wyoming doesn't actually get more votes. You're Talking about just 3/4 of the overall states and 3/4 of the vote in Congress, which is proportional representation. So there's a way to fix it that our founding fathers, I mean, these guys were geniuses. They had built that into the system.
- [07:20]
Astro
I agree. I love my country. I'm a patriot.
- [07:23]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Yeah, if you convince your citizens, then maybe that will be true. 50 years.
- [07:26]
Charlie Kirk
But we don't believe that majority ways of doing elections is the best way. We think.
- [07:31]
Astro
Why not?
- [07:31]
Charlie Kirk
Well, because we're not an up or down majoritarian democracy, whereas we're a decentralized country of states first. And I'll keep on saying that, that sovereign states matter. That's what makes us different than France and Germany and Belgium and the United Kingdom, is that we're a bottom up form of government, not a top down form of government.
- [07:47]
Astro
Germany also has strong state governments.
- [07:49]
Charlie Kirk
Not as much actually. During COVID when edicts were done in Germany, it was straight from the centralized government. No, it's like they did not have provinces like Bavaria did not have a different COVID policy than, you know, Berlin. They didn't have in America. Covid was a great example of why we have decentralized states. States were able to make different decisions. California lost their mind.
- [08:11]
Astro
I don't disagree with you on this. Love our country. What I'm saying is you haven't addressed why somebody in Wyoming should matter more on the electoral college basis than me in Texas. It makes no sense.
- [08:22]
Charlie Kirk
I reject the frame.
- [08:23]
Astro
One person, one vote.
- [08:25]
Charlie Kirk
No, that's not the. It's never been that way though, not in presidential elections.
- [08:28]
Astro
Okay.
- [08:29]
Charlie Kirk
No, it's not one person, one vote is majoritarian democracy. Instead it's the states get appropriate.
- [08:35]
Astro
But you haven't told me why that's better. You've told me that.
- [08:38]
Charlie Kirk
I'm attempting to. As I said, we're a bottom up government, not a top down government. It decentralizes power. It also requires leaders, as I've said, to hear the needs, wants and concerns. We're not going to agree here, and that's fine.
- [08:49]
Vivek Ramaswamy
So I'll give you, I'll give you an image. Unfortunately, I can't show you the image like right now, but you can look it up. All right. Somebody made this image of what the electoral map could look like if the electoral college was, was abolished. You would have two blue dots, one around New York and one around the west coast of California. The entire rest of the map of the United States of America.
- [09:09]
Astro
I'm from Texas, I can assure you several blue dots.
- [09:13]
Vivek Ramaswamy
But I'm saying that, I'm saying that in Theory. You could have an election where it would just be those two blue blots and the rest of the entire map is red, and you would still have an outcome where you would have a blue president in the United States. Yes, and it could be. And so. And so the answer is that would feel unjust for a lot of those other states that deserve to actually be respected as states in the Union. We have the Senate and the House for the same reason that we have the Electoral College. We need to balance the way in which those sovereign states are still a part of the Union. I know you may not find that persuasive. That's the reason. But if you convince other people across the country, you'd be able to overturn it in a constitutional amendment. It's just that that hasn't happened in the first 240 years of our constitutional family.
- [09:49]
Charlie Kirk
Thank you very much.
- [09:50]
Brandon
Hi, Mr. Ramswamy. Hi, Mr. Kirk. So, my name is Brandon. I. Oh, boy. There's a lot of folk back there. They don't like you very much. So my main disagreement with you guys, at least in my opinion, would be I think you guys are a bit of isolationist. Would you call yourselves isolationists?
- [10:11]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I would not. Would you, Charlie?
- [10:12]
Charlie Kirk
We're America first, not America.
- [10:14]
Brandon
Could you elaborate on that position?
- [10:15]
Charlie Kirk
I was about to. Okay, we're America first, but not America only.
- [10:19]
Brandon
Okay? Okay.
- [10:20]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And here's what that means. I'm not an interventionist. Okay? I think our foreign policy should reflect whatever best advances America's interests. Now, I'll just summarize this in a punchline because we got a lot of questions to get to.
- [10:31]
Brandon
Yeah.
- [10:31]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Is it in America's interest to provide protection and security guarantees to allies? It often is, but I have one rule of thumb. You got to ask them to pay for it, at least their fair share. I'm against the nanny state domestically, but I got to be consistent. I'm against the nanny state internationally, too. And I'll give you NATO as one example of that. All right? Most of the countries in NATO do not pay for the minimum amount they've already agreed to pay in the treaty of NATO. 2% of their GDP on military expense for their own national defense. They're not doing it today. Germany is arbitraging the United States of America, and I think that's wrong. And I think that Uncle Sam has become Uncle Sucker. Uncle Sucker no more. And you know what? That's not just for the money. People think I say this for the money. The money matters. We have 34 trillion in national debt, it's going to fall on your generation's shoulder. Heavier than that backpack you're wearing by the time you grow up. I appreciate that. So it's already heavy. You're feeling the burden of it. But it's not just for the money. Other nations are more likely to start wars when they don't bear the full cost of those wars. It's a concept that you call moral hazard in economics, where you don't bear the full burden of the risks that you take. So it's not just your taxpayer money. It's not even me and Charlie be long gone before most of you. Okay. It's your future money and your future national debt. But it's not just that. It's more likely to drag you into a war because some other country doesn't have the incentive to bear the cost if the United States is subsidizing it. That's my answer. So, not. Not. I'm America first. I'm not an isolationist. But I do think that those who we support should pay their fair share, and that's not too much to ask.
- [12:06]
Brandon
Okay. So I would say it's very interesting that you say that, because, like, I am, I am personally an interventionist. I believe in the idea that we are the city on the Hill. We're the beacon. We're also the world police. And in. In that role, we should maintain a world that has free and functioning democracy. Meaning. So, for example, you were talking about the Iraq war earlier. The Iraq war, I believe, in my personal opinion, was a justified war. Not for the reasons why they claimed it was justified in WMDs, but because of what Saddam Hussein was doing to the Kurdish population in Iraq and gassing them and gassing his own people. And so I believe that it is the responsibility of the American people as the holders of that torch of democracy, to deliver that democracy and make sure.
- [12:46]
Vivek Ramaswamy
A lot of Republicans might agree with you, Charlie, and I don't. And that's what I understand. I understand.
- [12:50]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, yeah. Dick Cheney definitely agrees with you. No, but. But really, I'm just curious. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, parts of Syria, Ukraine. Do you think those are successes?
- [13:02]
Brandon
So I would say it. It would depend on how you grade a success, but I would say particularly Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the key failing point. Although Iraq is somewhat stable, it's a kind of a moderate case controlled by Iraq.
- [13:15]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah.
- [13:15]
Brandon
So it's. It's moderate. Right. But for Afghanistan, that's the real failure. And that's where I think the Biden administration really failed. And that that exit Strategy was not operated poorly. We shouldn't have left in the first place. We should have made sure that the government was ready and willing to actually be able to take care of the people.
- [13:30]
Charlie Kirk
So let's see if we can agree on something.
- [13:32]
Brandon
Yeah.
- [13:32]
Charlie Kirk
If you had to choose, and you don't, but if you had to choose, should the American border matter more than wars abroad?
- [13:38]
Brandon
I would say it should matter as equal.
- [13:41]
Vivek Ramaswamy
It should equal.
- [13:42]
Charlie Kirk
Really?
- [13:42]
Brandon
Yeah.
- [13:43]
Charlie Kirk
You think that our border should matter as much as something happening overseas?
- [13:46]
Brandon
I think our. Our status as a world power, as the superpower of the world is not just that we have borders here domestically, but we have borders abroad that are, I guess you could say more ephemeral or whatever. They are still our border with, like Russia, for example, with NATO, that is still a border that we should be paying attention, paying attention to and focusing with.
- [14:08]
Vivek Ramaswamy
We are. I just believe that Germany needs to be paying more. So that's where you agree. And we could go all day on this.
- [14:17]
Charlie Kirk
Pull them in.
- [14:17]
Vivek Ramaswamy
We love this.
- [14:17]
Brandon
But I love you. I mean, I had hope for you, Vivek, but like, I'm a Democrat personally, but like. And I'm sorry, you know, whatever, but I'm Catholic and you know, it's. Whatever. But basically, I just think that you were so good. I just. Your foreign policy is what turned me off.
- [14:33]
Charlie Kirk
But I will say, as someone who is an interventionist, you have found your home. The Democrat party is the party of reckless war and invading foreign countries.
- [14:41]
Brandon
Hey, you know what?
- [14:42]
Charlie Kirk
And turning the back on the American people. So you're right. Hey, you've made.
- [14:45]
Vivek Ramaswamy
He's a lot more honest.
- [14:46]
Charlie Kirk
No, no, I'm not saying it sarcastically. I know. I mean.
- [14:49]
Brandon
No, no.
- [14:49]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, you're. You're at home honest.
- [14:51]
Brandon
I'll be real. I'll be realistic. Because our party, I'm not going to lie.
- [14:54]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah. Our party thinks Iraq was a mistake, Libya was a snake, Syria's mistake, Afghanistan was a snake. And we're able to have a serious.
- [15:00]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Conversation because you're actually honest about it. A lot of Republicans and Democrats try to pretend otherwise, and I appreciate the.
- [15:04]
Brandon
Yeah, I think that's the problem with politics, lack of honesty.
- [15:06]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Thank you. Thank you. We love you guys. We love you guys. Thank you, man. You said you disagree or you think the climate change agenda is a hoax?
- [15:17]
F
I'd like to hear more about that and why.
- [15:19]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Yeah. So there's. Let me give you several different questions to answer because sometimes the media just makes them all up into one question number one, are global surface temperatures going up answer. Yes. Yes. Number two, is that due to man made causes less clear? Which manmade causes is due to carbon dioxide? Far from certain. I can explain why it's only.04% of the atmosphere. There's actually stronger arguments for H2O having more of a greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. But the most important question is the one that nobody's talking about. Are we sure or do we have any evidence that those rising temperatures are bad for human beings?
- [15:53]
F
Yes.
- [15:54]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And the answer to that is no. Dryers are getting dry. Wet areas are getting wet. So here's, here's. Let me ask you, Let me ask you a quick question about the polar ice caps melting. True or false, the Antarctic ice coverage has gone up in the last hundred years? False. It's just a blatant, blatant factual. I wrote an entire book about this coming out next week. Antarctic ice coverage. Arctic. As you've seen polar ice caps melting in the Arctic, you've actually seen expansion of Antarctic ice coverage. Now here's a further fact. Do more people die of cold temperatures or warm ones?
- [16:26]
F
Cold temperatures.
- [16:27]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Okay. How many more people die of cold temperatures than warm ones?
- [16:29]
F
Can't tell you, but I know it's more cold temperatures.
- [16:30]
Vivek Ramaswamy
It's about eight times as many people. So for every one person who dies of a warm temperature, eight times as many people die of a cold temperature. Is there more green surface area covering the Earth today than there was a hundred years ago? More or less today? Less. False. There's actually more green surface area.
- [16:45]
Charlie Kirk
Not even close.
- [16:46]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And yeah, I don't expect you to know all this because I write a book. It's coming out next week. I've researched this stuff. I don't expect you to have know this off the top of your head, but the reason why is it was actually predictable. Carbon dioxide is plant food and plants tend to grow in warmer atmospheres than in cooler ones. So 40 years ago, we used to teach kids in the country that deforestation was a main problem. The reason that's disappeared is that we're not seeing deforestation as a problem. We're seeing a greening effect from the planet. And the thing they used to worry about 50 years ago back then was that we were actually going to die of an ice age because more human beings have died of ice ages than they've died from warm temperatures ever. We're currently in an ice age. Well, the reality is more people are dying as a consequence of that. So why on earth are we worried if global surface temperatures go up one degree over the next century. That's really where the climate change agenda ends up being a hoax. Here's another reason it's a hoax. The very people who are most opposed to fossil fuels in the United States are also among those who are the biggest opponents to nuclear energy, the greatest form of carbon free energy production known to mankind. The very people who, like BlackRock, who have called for emissions caps in the United States at companies like Chevron are perfectly fine supporting greater emissions in places like China at companies like PetroChina. When you're talking about actual global warming, it has no net effect if you burn it. In the United States versus China, China has burned more coal last year than they ever have in their history while we burned less coal than we ever did in our history. So that's a hoax. And who benefits from this hoax? It's the ccp. So you're saying China's, China's laughing at us at every step. You're saying we're not running out of fossil fuels? I'm saying that we're not running out of fossil fuels.
- [18:22]
Charlie Kirk
We haven't even discovered. We only discovered like 10% of fossil fuels.
- [18:26]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And that's why the argument against fossil fuels in the 80s used to be that we're running out. Now you don't actually hear that from popular science anymore because they realize they're actually finding more fossil fuels. Now. It's actually global warming has become the justification. Let me just say word about this. We got two questions on this. So what's going on? If they say it was ice age, now it's warming before they said it's running out. Now it's not that we're running out, it's climate change. What the heck's going on? I think this has become a substitute for a modern religion. I think at a moment where we stop believing in our country and believing in God, we start believing in this new climate God instead. And you know, every religion has this tradition of wearing a hair shirt or flogging yourself. This is the modern secular version of flogging ourselves and apologizing for our success in the west while China's laughing at us every, at every step of the way. Catching up. They have a word for this in China. It's called bitsuo. Okay, it doesn't apply to you and I, but it refers to literally progressive left white people in the United States and they use it to laugh at us. And I do think that that's exactly what this climate change agenda is all about. Thank you, my man, I appreciate it.
- [19:27]
Charlie Kirk
Thank you.
- [19:29]
G
Hey, guys. So I'm a grad student here getting my master's in security intelligence. I work in D.C. and finance and stuff like that. So I have a question for you guys. So across many of the sectors, I've noticed a lot of increase in cyber attacks from nation states and other groups responsible of transnational crime. How can the Trump administration help assist with that? Because it's attacking our infrastructure, of our hospitals, it's attacking our banking system, our ATM machines. So I'd like to know, what do you think the good strategy is in mind for that and your guys personal thoughts on that?
- [19:57]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I'll go quick on this. We can get another question. Yeah, yeah. So we're really good at offensive cyber. We're really bad at defensive cyber protection. So the answer is actually we need greater training in the United States of America of people who actually have the talents required to power greater cybersecurity. We're not doing that today. There's, when it relates to AI, so much focus on investing in new algorithms, not enough in actually applying AI. More of that focus in college education. You got to do a master's program. Hopefully that's part of it right here at up. It's a talent gap in the United States and I think we can fix it. Thank you, man.
- [20:27]
G
Yep. Hi, guys.
- [20:28]
Charlie Kirk
I hope you guys are doing well. So, yeah, my question is that in today's political climate, do you guys believe that anyone can actually be truly centrist today? In today's centrist, like exactly. Like 5050.
- [20:41]
Vivek Ramaswamy
See, I don't like the word centrist. I'll tell you why. It assumes that there's two poles, that there's a left over here, there's a right over here, it's one axis and then there's some middle. I just don't think the political spectrum works that way. Actually. We're talking about other. Just think about the things we talked about. Foreign wars. There's a bipartisan consensus in favor of him, there's a bipartisan consensus against him. Effects of mega money in politics. There's one way, there's the other way. So I don't think it's just this like, left, right. Then there's centrist. I also think that centrism can be a fake kind of siren song where I don't want to unite just the people in front of the 30 yard line on each side and bring them in the middle, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. We want to unite. And I know Donald Trump wants this. He wants to unite the whole country and I think that includes people who we deeply disagree with. So I think what we have to embrace more of in the country is not pretending like we all agree on this narrow band of questions and ignore everybody else. The way we disagree, like hell, but we're still citizens of the same nation at the end.
- [21:31]
Charlie Kirk
What if they're not agreeing on one thing? But it's like, you have the same amount of, like, viewpoints that are, like, economically left and economically right and, like, same thing with social views. Like, you have just the same amount, like 50. 50amount. What would you classify yourself then as? Like, if you were having those viewpoints, you know, I.
- [21:47]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Independent minded, pro American, free thinking. I mean, that's what our founding fathers were. And I'm fine. I mean, I think it's kind of cool if you're. If you're 18 or 19 or 20 years old and don't want to call yourself a Republican or Democrat, that's great. Use your time to be unshackled. I voted Libertarian in my first election when I was about 19 years old. I was back in 2004.
- [22:05]
Charlie Kirk
Do you think it's worth voting for a third party candidate?
- [22:07]
Vivek Ramaswamy
So I believe in pragmatism at this point in time.
- [22:10]
G
Okay.
- [22:10]
Vivek Ramaswamy
If you're voting to make a point for yourself, okay, that's one thing. If you're voting to actually make for a better country, make the choice between the two candidates on the ballot. Pick the one who you think is gonna be better at sealing the border, growing the economy, staying out of World War 3, and reviving national pride in this country. Whoever you think that's gonna be, vote for him and have a good sense of who that's gonna be.
- [22:28]
F
Okay?
- [22:29]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Thank you.
- [22:29]
Charlie Kirk
Thank you. Thank you.
- [22:30]
G
Okay.
- [22:31]
Charlie Kirk
Geez, Louise, try to talk right into the mic, please.
- [22:35]
G
Alrighty. Hey, Charlie, how's your. How's your tea? First of all.
- [22:40]
Charlie Kirk
My tea?
- [22:41]
G
Yes.
- [22:41]
Charlie Kirk
Good.
- [22:42]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Thank you.
- [22:42]
G
All right. So first of all. First of all, I'd like to ask why you're spending your time debating college students instead of people who have similar media training or experience to you.
- [22:53]
Charlie Kirk
I mean, it's already been asked. Are you a voter?
- [22:56]
G
I am.
- [22:56]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah. We're talking to voters in the key state of Pennsylvania. Should we not do that?
- [23:02]
G
I mean, I'm. I'm fine with you doing that. It just seems a little bit asymmetrical.
- [23:06]
Charlie Kirk
Well, we want to win the election. Right? So do a lot of conservatives come to this campus?
- [23:12]
G
Not really.
- [23:12]
Charlie Kirk
Well, that's why we're here. Okay.
- [23:15]
G
All right. So if you. If you want to talk about something else. You've both had conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on your podcasts. Charlie, you've had him at Turning Point Action.
- [23:24]
Charlie Kirk
Alex is great.
- [23:25]
G
Yeah, Alex is great. Okay, so I have a couple of things that Alex has explicitly stated that he's believed.
- [23:30]
Charlie Kirk
That's going to be a waste of our time. I'm not going to agree with everything he's ever said.
- [23:33]
G
Okay, I'd like. I'd like you to at least hear some of these. He's a divinely inspired prophet in a battle against the literal devil, the evidence for which is that he knows when he wakes up on time.
- [23:42]
Charlie Kirk
I don't agree with that.
- [23:42]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Can I just ask you a question? Do you believe in talking to people who disagree with you or not?
- [23:47]
G
I believe in talking to people who disagree with you. You seem to think that he's enough of a, you know, paragon for the conservative cause to have him at your conversation.
- [23:54]
Charlie Kirk
Hold on a second. Alex Jones has been right about major issues for the last 20 years. Jeffrey Epstein being number one. For 10 years, Alex Jones was saying that there is a child sex trafficking ring being run to an island in the Caribbean with very shady actors and people call them a conspiracy theorist. Was Jeffrey Epstein a correct story that Alex Jones broke?
- [24:16]
G
He didn't break it first?
- [24:17]
Charlie Kirk
Well, no, he was way ahead of the curve. Alex Jones was on the Jeffrey Epstein story for a decade.
- [24:22]
G
Was he ahead of the curve with Sandy Hook?
- [24:24]
Charlie Kirk
I think that was the worst mistake of his career.
- [24:27]
Vivek Ramaswamy
He also said so, by the way.
- [24:28]
Charlie Kirk
I'm not a defender of everything he's ever done.
- [24:30]
G
Vivek, you've said that you've sympathetic towards him about the Sandy Hook lawsuit and that he was being, quote, I actually.
- [24:36]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Challenged him on it. I challenged. The first time we said I never met the guy was in Texas.
- [24:40]
G
Your debate, you do not challenge him.
- [24:41]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Actually, people should listen to the podcast I held with him the first time I ever met him. We're in Texas. I said, what was going on with that? He actually was surprised. I expected to be defensive. He said, that was a big mistake I made. And anybody who.
- [24:51]
G
Have you listened to his show after because he's gone back on that, he's still to this day claiming that it was okay.
- [24:55]
Charlie Kirk
Well, then when he visits Pittsburgh, ask him a question.
- [24:58]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Yeah, okay.
- [25:00]
G
All right.
- [25:01]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I just believe, and I think it's so important in our country right now more than ever, if we have a chance of having a country left, we can't be a country that says, okay, here's people who have views that are far outside of what I disagree with. So I'm not going to talk to them. It's part of what your first question was also, why is Charlie here? We believe in open dialogue and open discourse. I think that's how we're going to save the country. And back when I was 18, this used to be a country where we could disagree like hell and still get together at the dinner table at the end of it. That's like, that's America. That's the essence of this country. And I think I speak for all of us here when I say we hope to bring that back. All right, so bring that spirit back. Disagree with us. We'll take the next question.
- [25:36]
Brandon
I just got a quick question. What are your both of your stances on the legalization of marijuana and psychedelics?
- [25:44]
Charlie Kirk
I'm against it. I don't know if it makes.
- [25:46]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Yeah. So look, I think that right now, the federal. I think the federal drug enforcement agenda, I think, has been far overreaching and they've used as an. As a vehicle to advance other agendas. Here's the next step. I think we need veterans access. Let's just start with this as a next step. Veterans who suffer from ptsd, I believe, do need access to ketamine, psilocybin and ayahuasca, which should be reclassified in their scheduling for veterans with ptsd. I think it's a great next step to take. I think that that is far better than the outcomes that we otherwise allow for veterans to suffer from addiction to fentanyl and worse. And I think it's a. That's a good next step in this conversation. That's where I land.
- [26:27]
Brandon
Why are you so against the recreational use of it, though?
- [26:30]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I mean, I haven't made that my top issue. Right. I mean, so against it. But do I think that it has demonstrably poor effects in places like. You could look at Seattle, you could look at Portland, even look at a city like Portland. Thought this is a great idea. Well tried in practice. Didn't turn out to be such a great idea because there's deep structural issues for why actually people are turning to drugs that correlate with, I think a lot of other behaviors that even cities like Portland have realized haven't gone well for them. Okay, so that's where I land on it.
- [26:54]
Charlie Kirk
Thank you.
- [26:54]
Astro
Thank you.
- [26:55]
F
Hi. Nice meeting you guys. I'm like, not a Democrat. I'm Green Party. But anyways, what, do you support what Donald Trump says he's. Or do you support what Israel is doing? In Gaza right now. Yes, but they're killing a bunch of people and they're not going to achieve their goals by doing what they're doing in Gaza. They will be turning more people towards Hamas. They're essentially making the Gazans hate them even more.
- [27:22]
Charlie Kirk
Well, they're engaged in a war because what happened on October 7th.
- [27:27]
F
Yes, but Hamas was an organization that was brought up by Netanyahu. Netanyahu personally funded Hamas. Like they're.
- [27:34]
Charlie Kirk
No, it's not. I mean, Hamas was. Is a terrorist organization voted by the people of Gaza. Gaza was controlled by Israel until, I think, 2004 or five, if I'm not mistaken.
- [27:43]
F
2005.
- [27:44]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah. Okay, thank you. 2005. And so Hamas was not funded by Netanyahu. I see. No, if that's correct, I'll.
- [27:51]
F
I mean, New York Times even has, like, stuff on it, but, yeah, I'm sure they're right. Netanyahu has said that he funds Hamas as, like, a counterbalance.
- [28:00]
Charlie Kirk
Let's try to find a common ground here. Do you. Do you agree that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland?
- [28:05]
F
Oh, yes.
- [28:05]
Charlie Kirk
Okay, great. No, that's a big deal. Hamas doesn't believe that.
- [28:08]
F
Yeah, but I don't agree with Hamas. I'm just.
- [28:11]
Charlie Kirk
No, no, I know. But what I'm saying, though, is that we must start from first principles on the Israel question. Number one, that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland.
- [28:18]
F
Yes.
- [28:19]
Charlie Kirk
Number two, what is Israel?
- [28:23]
F
I mean, it's a country.
- [28:25]
Charlie Kirk
No, I know. No, but that's an important. Does it include Judea Samaria? Does it include the Golan Heights? Does it include Gaza? I'm not putting you on the spot here because I don't expect you to know the geopolitics of it. Those are the two first principle questions. Do the Jews have a right to their ancestral homeland? Yes or no? And then number two, what is that homeland? And what are the borders that define it? Those are the only two important questions that explain the Israel conflict. Vivek, do you want to chip in?
- [28:50]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Yeah, Look, I think that I look at this from an American perspective, and if what happened in October 7th happened in our country, I think we would defend. I would not want any other country telling us in the United States of America what we can or cannot do. And so I've been consistent. I think Israel is a sovereign nation that has a right and a responsibility to defend its sovereignty to the fullest. One of the beauties of Israel is they actually have diverse debates. You look at their own government, they have a Lot of divisions, just like we do here. But it's up to us to allow Israel to self determine its own right course of action without meddling. That's what we're seeing happen there through open debate in a democratic country.
- [29:29]
F
And that's what I support in responding to both points. Like, the Jews have a right to their own country, but when they create Israel, they should not have driven out the Palestinians who are originally living there. They should have made a nation living side by side with them. I'm responding to the point about October 7th like it was bad. And Hamas is a terrorist organization, but Israel, what they're doing to the Palestinians is what made Hamas so powerful. And Netanyahu personally have. He has supported Hamas against the Palestinian Authority as a counterbalance.
- [30:01]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, we're not going to agree. Thank you very much.
- [30:03]
F
Yeah, I mean, free Palestine.
- [30:05]
Charlie Kirk
Okay.
- [30:06]
F
Yeah. So I agree with you all that, like, we have a lack of open discourse and debate in our society. That's a real problem, especially with, like, misinformation plaguing our social media. Right, Sorry about that. So my question is, do you really believe, right, like, that the best way to have this open discourse with voters, like you said in response to one else's question, is in a format like this, you know, where, you know, us college students don't have the time to be prepared or have as much time to prepare on these topics. Therefore, we aren't able to have like rigorous intellectual discussions with you, especially when, in the end, when you aren't defending the version, your arguments against the best versions of your opposition's arguments. We have no reason to, like, believe that your case is true.
- [30:44]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I'll tell you, we got it. It's all of the above. I'm having a debate with John Bolton at another college campus and he's a Republican, but has different views than me on foreign policy from. We do rallies with these guys, fill up audiences of tens of thousands of people. We'll talk to people who agree with us. I went to places like Harvard and Yale, not exactly bastions of conservatism. I tell you, I got a better education because I was surrounded by people who challenged my own views. And I think that's missing on college campuses today. And so our hope, I know Charlie's hope, he's doing a great job of it, traveling the country is to make sure college is too expensive already. But you might as well at least get your money's worth by having your views challenged. And so is that good for the country? You're darn right it is especially ahead of an election. We need to talk to each other more in the country. And you know what? I'm not letting you off the hook so easily. We're also here because we expect more of you. We expect more, should expect more of each other. It's not that, oh, I'm this college student. I don't really understand everything. No, you actually have your parents. And so that. That I think is a good thing. And we want to challenge each other to be a best version of ourselves.
- [31:45]
F
So, yeah, basically my stance is that, like, in order to engage with you in a fruitful discussion, which I think is important.
- [31:51]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Right.
- [31:51]
F
For our society, that I should at least be given, like, for example, not me personally, but like, me, as in college students should be given, like, an equal amount of time to prepare and be, like, prepared for this engagement. Right. Like, your whole job is, like, knowing about these things and researching them. We have classes to study for. Right. So, like, for example, why don't you. To engage with voters. I agree that you, like, maybe engage with intellectual experts somewhere else, but engage with college students on a more even playing field. Playing field. Reach out to, like, for example, like colleges, debate teams or their political organizations. Because I was never reached out to personally, and I'm the captain of CM's debate team, and I believe that we do have responsibility to know better. Right. And I would have liked the opportunity to, like, engage with you in a more, like, deeper, meaningful way and maybe a more like, structured debate format. So I think, like, in the future, it'd be more fruitful for everyone if you reach out to those organizations.
- [32:36]
Charlie Kirk
It's a good point, but would you agree at least having this is better than not speaking at all?
- [32:40]
F
Yeah, but I don't think those are the two options. You have many more options, and you have many more resources. You can do a lot more.
- [32:45]
Charlie Kirk
You would be surprised.
- [32:46]
F
Stuff like this is for the calendar.
- [32:49]
Charlie Kirk
Thanks so much. Last question coming up. Make it a discipline disagreement and make it good. Disagreement and make it good. Yep.
- [32:56]
G
All right.
- [32:56]
F
Hi, guys. Thank you for coming today. So my question is, you know, I feel like a lot of topics that are discussed today are very tired. Not that they're unimportant, but a lot of key issues go neglected, especially in politics. So my question is regarding the health of the nation. RFK's slogan recently is make America healthy again. We have poisoned essentially our population with processed foods and seed oils. And the rise, cancer cases are on the rise. This is no secret. But the issue is that starvation was an issue Decades ago and now it's not an issue. But at what cost? So processed foods and we can grow food very rapidly, but at what cost? We're poisoning our nation. My question is how do you sustainably make the health the country healthy again?
- [33:35]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Yeah. Yes, I agree. I agree on a discrimination and the lobbying. That's the number one answer. If you've been an elected official, you should not be able to be a lobbyist for at least 10 years until after you've left elected officers going to help the health of this country. Thank you.
- [33:47]
Charlie Kirk
Thank you. Thank you. I will say I will direct you last evening actually before I took a red eye flight, we had RFK for an hour and a half event. I encourage you to watch that. All about the Maha agenda. So thank you.
- [33:59]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Let's take a solid disagreement that we got to roll.
- [34:02]
Charlie Kirk
Is this a disagreement? Okay, great.
- [34:04]
G
So the state of Alaska has had.
- [34:06]
Charlie Kirk
Since 1976 its Alaska permanent Fund. Yeah. Which is actually a ubiquitous.
- [34:12]
G
Since Alaska's UBI has been so progressive.
- [34:14]
Charlie Kirk
And so able to provide over $1800.
- [34:18]
G
To every Alaskan citizen annually, as well as providing extra funding for roads, for education, for infrastructure around the state. Would you be in support of a measure similar to that using the United States advanced economic resources to provide the nation something that could inevitably benefit every citizen economically?
- [34:34]
Charlie Kirk
No. And you know that's a natural resource based ubi.
- [34:37]
G
I do, yeah. It's oil based.
- [34:39]
Charlie Kirk
Got it. So. Which I always find interesting. No, no. I principally am against ubi. What are your thoughts?
- [34:43]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I'm against it too. I think it's what I find interesting about is at least it's outside of the box. It forces people to think it has an America first like character to it.
- [34:52]
G
Been widely supported by Alaskan people to.
- [34:54]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Say that actually, you know, rather give it to Americans than give it to some, you know, Ukrainian bureaucrat or something like that. But I think part of the reason I'm against it is we need to revive a culture of self determination and hard work in this country. Right.
- [35:06]
G
And oil production in Alaska is based on Alaskan citizens. So returning some of their money back.
- [35:11]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Which is very different from a national benefit, which is a different from a.
- [35:14]
G
National context because we're saying United States is domestic national resources. So here some of that profit.
- [35:20]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Here's. Here's what I'll say in closeness. And that wasn't really even a disagreement as an idea we go and stay for one more disagreement that we got to go is. It is an interesting idea, but it increases dependence on the state And I do think that that dependence is something that has actually been bad for the psychology. It doesn't increase of countless workers across.
- [35:36]
G
The country people's tax money back to them. Wouldn't you agree that's a benefit if we can reduce.
- [35:41]
Charlie Kirk
No, it's it's not a refund. It's extracting value from a separate pool and giving it to citizens.
- [35:48]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Right.
- [35:48]
Charlie Kirk
You're right. It is popular that the people fund through their labor. Well, not everybody in Alaska works in the oil rigs.
- [35:54]
G
That's true.
- [35:55]
Charlie Kirk
Right.
- [35:56]
Vivek Ramaswamy
So reward the people who do. That'd be more.
- [35:57]
Charlie Kirk
Exactly. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us. As always, freedomarlykirk.com thanks so much for listening and God bless us.
- [36:05]
Vivek Ramaswamy
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk. Com.