John Fetterman: The Rogue Democrat Who Broke Party Ranks

Very excited to have him here today. I know you're in the middle of voting today.

“Sounds like the Save America Act might be starting its debate on the floors at correct?”

I don't know. I think what I've heard recently that they don't have the votes, but we will find. But I don't have any special insight. I mean, it's going to be very close. I don't think if they do hit it. I don't see it more beyond 51, but I'm not really sure. It's a shame that they didn't make it more about just ID to vote. They turned it into other things that they turned it into kind of a Christmas tree and they're hanging all these things on it. But now that's where we are,

but we'll know. And having someone follow that too, I mean, he's going to let me know, in fact, because I'm really interested to see how it goes because if they do, then that's going to turn into a really a spectacle about what a talking filibester is. Yeah. Well, let's see what happens. I mean, it's a pretty dramatic week ahead. Let me just start. I want to zoom out a little bit and talk about how you make policy decisions. And I want to just

start with party. You ran as a progressive in 2016 loss. You beat Dr. Rods in 22. And now you have 72% approval rating from Pennsylvania Republicans. And only 22% from Democrats. Are you a Republican

“or are you a Democrat Senator? And kind of what's the way that you think about your party affiliation?”

Actually, I think the more realistic numbers was like earlier in the morning console. And that

had me at basically 50, 50 with thems. And I was in the 60s with Republicans. Without a doubt,

without a doubt, that I am more popular with Republicans. And I'm mystified by that. I mean, honored to have support from any Pennsylvania. But what I will say that, you know, I've just going to follow what I think is the moral clarity. And now in my very first race back in 2015, over a decade ago, what used to be a progressive is definitely not what a progressive started to turn into. And what it became. And even in my race in 2122, I was announcing, I am no longer,

I'm just a Democrat. I'm not a progressive. And now there's been that evolution away from like those core principles that really weren't controversial. And now I've isolated myself by following and standing and proud to be unapologetically supporting Israel. And now, if you've seen that that poll came out yesterday, that the standing and the Democratic Party continues to tear you away, I've put that out on my social media. And I said, I don't follow. I don't care about

the polls. You know, there's a moral clarity here. And that should be where the rest of us should be. And it's been really easy for me to lean in on it. And that I created the only Democrat that's very supportive about Epic Fury. And also the only Democrat that refuses to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Yes, as a Democrat, we'd like to make some some reforms on ice. But what I'm unwilling to do is shut it down. And after that horrific that attack in Michigan,

where he was looking to kill 150 toddlers, you know, and now there's more and more kinds of these events, why would you vote to shut our government down? And the cyber security agency,

you know, that must be incredible for the Chinese and the Iranians, though, that we've shut that

government down. So that's that, you know, my core values haven't changed. If anything's changed,

“that's been kind of the core, what's required to be a Democrat? And I'm going to follow what I think”

is true. What is the country over party, whether that's the right side of history? What do you think the Democratic Party used to stand for? What does it stand for today? And what do you think it should stand for? Honestly, I don't know. But what I will say, as I would refer to to your listeners, is like, listen to what the people that are running for the Senate is Democrats. Watch what they're saying and doing. And that's becoming more and more anti-Israel, openly hostile to Israel. And now that

becomes part of the litmus purity test, I'm not going to take any of their money. I'm going to

to break that access there, the Hezbollah and Hamas, and now attacking also Houthis as well. So I mean, do you know where with Democrats stand for? See who's running for the Senate? And now planter, the Nazi tattoo guy, on top of being an avowed communist, and now said incredibly offensive things about women and sexual assault. And now refers to rural people as stupid and racist. And now, is that what Democrats want? I guess we'll see that. But you see in all these different

things also in Michigan, too. A guy that really is far I know is refused to condemn Hamas. And he led the no committed. It's like forget what that stupid thing was called, but it was like, you know, no vote, no vote for uncommitted. Uncommitted. Yeah, we're not going to vote for Hamas, Kamala Harris, and now they help deliver Trump for Michigan. So that's like look who's running and look who's being competitive. So that's you want to know where Democrats are, look in those kinds of

races. You know, it's interesting. We used to have the ability to agree on some things and disagree on

“other things and seems nowadays, whatever the other side is doing or saying, you have to take”

the opposing view. And in many cases, it seems like that might force folks to kind of contort into these weird positions that don't even make logical sense. Why did we get to this point?

What happened that everything had to be polar? There was never the ability for us to, there's no

longer the ability for us to agree on some things, while disagreeing on other things. What caused this change in this country and can we get back from it? I don't know. Part of my parties become so inflexible. What I've discovered that you know, you are not allowed to be a proud unapologetic standing with Israel, but it's okay. It's not a big deal. If you have a Nazi tattoo on your chest, and you have people now and my party now are trying to normalize that or to excuse that. I mean,

like that's that's kind of where we are. And now I know what's toxic as a Democrat to disagree with,

“but for me, those are I think our core values, the kinds of values in Israel,”

kinds of the core value that we always use to say, never ever shut our government down. That's always

wrong. You're going to punish union members. You're going to punish every day Americans. Now, here we're doing those same things. And now I think our border, for example, I think secure our border to port all the criminals, but now never ever have the kind of tragedies like we had in many apolis. That's not what anyone really voted for any of these supports. So, you know, if I'm more popular, the Republicans, I don't really know, but I also thought I treat everyone with respect,

and I don't refer to Republicans or members of MAGA. They're not Nazis. They're not fascists. They're not trying to destroy our country. Now, I know and I love many, many people that voted for or support President Trump. I'm going to treat anybody with respect. I don't attack members of their families. I don't use and those kinds of attacks. We have to find a better way

“forward. And that's what I've been maintaining. Who do you think leads the Democratic Party today?”

Oh, we don't. We don't have one. I think the TDS, that I think that's the leader right now. You know, right now our party is governed by the TDS, and now it's made it virtually impossible without being punished as a Democrat to agree something's good, or I agree with the other side. And I would define that by epic fury. I am literally the only Democrat in America in Congress that I've come across the thing. I think it's a great thing to break and destroy the

Iranian regime. I think it's entirely appropriate to hold them accountable and what's strange to me that every single Democrat that's run for President and anyone that I know in Congress says we must

never allow them to acquire a nuclear bomb. When that happens, why not celebrate that?

It'll acknowledge that. I have only witnessed just criticism and this kind of this kind of attack.

just because it comes from the different party, that tells me that you're choosing the demand

“of the base or the party over country or what's really, I think, appropriate in that circumstances.”

Now, I would say now, to any country, any country, do you consume oil? Yes, of course we do. Well, then that makes it your problem too. That makes you part of your responsibility. I don't know why. Israel and our nation did the heavy-leaving, excuse me, the heavy work to destroy the Iranian military apparatus. Now, why not wouldn't you help us to reopen the straits? Because you consume oil. You all could be the ability to why not participate

that's that's strange to me. So I think everyone, why can't you get behind the only ones that are in our China and Russia? Those are the same kinds of, especially in Europe. You know what they're doing to Ukraine for over four years. And we all know what the goals of China is. So to say it's not our war. It's like, yeah, well, it's our cause. And if you consume oil and you all do, that effectively makes us all part of this responsibility.

Right. Do you think there's a clear path to getting out of Iran for the United States of this stage? How do you view this exit happening? It seems like the president to some degree is declaring victory, but on the other hand, there seems to be continued activity and push forward here. What's our exit path? I don't know. But what I will say, what's undeniably been

happened. Now, first, why aren't all of the media outlets demanding proof of life

from from the Iatola? You know, ever since that first strike, back in last month, not a peep, not a peep out of them. I mean, the Iranians are doing kind of like weekend at Italians. You know, like they're just trying to pretend this guy is functional in any, in any way. And now just today, today, you know, they just, they just eliminated, you know, who was effectively the

“the de facto leader. You know, I think that's fantastic. Keep doing it. It's for that.”

So, and without a doubt, they have no capabilities at this point otherwise than to fire off a drone

at civilians, at civilians. The Iranians have never done anything other than just attacking civilians.

Absolutely. That's the fact. You know, they can't engage in traditional kinds of combat. So, those cowards, what they do is fire drones to create chaos. You know, they've been effectively neutered. And that's a wonderful thing. And that's also effectively broken the, the proxies. And that's also made the world undeniably more secure. So, and this is not, this is not a, I mean, this war is only three weeks into it. This, whatever you want to call it,

whatever the semantics. It's three weeks. This is not like a Ukraine in war. You know, this is three weeks. It's not, you know, neat. And it's not absolutely quick to, to dismantle the entire Iranian apparatus of the thing, holding them accountable is entirely appropriate. And every single

president, since the last 40, some years, wanted to do something about Iran. Finally, that's happened.

It's a good thing. And now, to your point about the straight and America looking for assistance to support the activities, the commercial oil activities through the straight. NATO allies have largely said, no, do you think that we're looking at the end of the NATO alliance? What does this speak to for the future of both Americans' leadership in the West and this alliance that has kind of created a great power center that's created balance in the world? I mean, it's NATO at risk.

“I'm proud to be an American. And, and I believe, you know, we are a force of good in the world.”

And I don't truly don't understand why they don't want to join us to, to reopen the straight. But if you consume oil, that makes it part of your, your problem. And that makes you part of your responsibility to join us. So, we've done the hard work at this point. And the horror of 107 was born by these railies, too. Now, they've done the appropriate thing to destroy

to just do that? Now, I do believe we will be successful with or without their help. But remind

“people that's been three weeks. And now for a nation that's 90 million, they'd used to be this”

fearsome force of military in the entire region. Just been pulverized into irrelevance other than just creating kinds of chaos firing a drone there. And now, they can't, they can't even in fight with honor. You know, they, they attack civilians. They've massacred their own, you know, there, there would be more uprising because they're terrified because they've had a witness as they've killed up to 35,000 of them last time. So, they've been held accountable as an American,

hold them accountable. And that's a good thing. Yeah, I think the question a lot of people are asking again is what does success look like? What's it to find out? How do we get out of this and when do we walk away? And that uncertainty, I think, is what has a lot of folks saying, I don't

“know if this is going to be common, other Iraq war or Afghanistan type situation. That's what”

makes sense. Absolutely absurd. This is not a nation building thing. This is a destroying a terrible regime, disarmament, disarmament. You know, like, if you live in Europe, remember what you, you know, like, if you would have disarmed the, the German Nazi regime before it, it really started. I mean, like, if you forgot the lessons of history, when you have a regime that is committed to destroying, you know, the nations in the region. And now, like, why is it wrong to hold them accountable?

And now, for critics, critics, critics are attacking, will it cost us a billion dollars? It's like,

well, you know, not stopping Iran would be a hell of a lot more expensive in lives and economic impact. So that's, that's the thing. Clearly, if you even consider of the lessons from history of disarming a dangerous toxic regime, the way they've done that, why can't you be open to really participate, but at least not just acknowledge that the world's made safer as a result. There's a lot of criticism from both sides of the aisle that perhaps the United States,

President Trump were unduly influenced by a Netanyahu, and by the Israeli lobbyists in the United States, you know, maybe you can address that point. You've taken money from a pack, and I know that you've kind of been, that's been brought up before, but how do you react to the argument that many are making that Israel has undue influence on our politics and our kind of global actions? Well, that plays into the, to the anti-Semitism and the tropes, and it's like pulling all the strings

and they're behind it. It's just, that's just part of the group. It's become more and more acceptable as a Democrat to say these things, you know, and it's like like Tucker Carlson, and Fuentes, and these people, you know, like no one claims them, no one claims them, you know, I promise you, at least I sit around wondering what those are the kind of visuals in their opinions

“on Israel or anything at that point. Same parts of my party as well too. Now, if you want to normalize”

that a Nazi tattoo is kind of like a one-off, it's no, not a big deal, or if you think Israel engaged in a genocide, you know, that how ignorant that is to the actually what defines a genocide is the exact opposite. They were in a just war, you know, and now remember where it started and remember what Hamas continued to do. Send everybody home in there. They would be the end of this. So, so that's part of this and how anti-Semitism out of control, out of control,

you know, in our college campuses and as well in the world, even in San Jose, you know, a Jew was beaten just having dinner. You know, you have people driving, crashing into synagogue, kind of like tree of life, but thankfully he was immediately killed by the security.

They had security because they had to provide those because they knew that's always

an ever-present kind of risk there. Thank God, thank God, what that could have made possible without them. So, that's where we are. And I don't listen to parts of whether it's my party or the extreme and the right, you know, I never turn to someone like Tucker Carlson for wisdom or their

topic, which we just hit on for a moment at the start of the show, which is to say back 83% of

“American support voter ID for elections, the Senate scheduled to take up the save act supposedly,”

or potentially this week. You've said you don't support the save act in its current form. What do you think needs to be changed? Do you generally agree with the idea of using voter ID

for elections? Well, the Republicans have never had any outreach or to engage. They never said,

"Hey, well, can we rework it? What can we offer?" And I'll make it real ID, real ID to vote. Keep it simple. So, why not? Why not? It's like that. I am not outraged by providing ID to vote. 71% of Democrats are okay with that. 83 of Americans are okay with it. Make it that, then, yeah, and I'm interested to really have that conversation. Another thing that they continue to do, they try to smear voting by mail. That's absolutely safe. And the red states in America,

like Florida, Ohio, and others, they rely on it. The more rural a state is, they really use that, too.

So, they've made it this Christmas tree of hanging all these kinds of boutique and other issues.

Now, if you are serious and like, hey, ID to vote, you might bring some actual Democrats on that. I'm not, you know, I refuse the kind of extreme rhetoric about it's not Jim Crow. It is not trying to suppress Americans from voting. It's making it perhaps more secure.

“And I'll have a serious conversation. And that's why, in a said, I'm unwilling to support it.”

And it's current, current form. And you think there has been election fraud and to what extent? Well, I mean, in my experience as Lieutenant Governor in 2020, there was a lot of allegation

that there was, and not one single, remind people, roughly 57 out of Pennsylvania, 67 counties

are deep, deep red. Not one single one, there was no fraud. There was no fraud. And now, we identified, I think, believe it was six, six or seven. In fact, and now coincidentally, they all happen to be Republicans that were voting for President Trump. And mostly they use the dead relative to try to devote that. And they were caught. So voter fraud, you know, in Pennsylvania, it is absolutely secure. I can actually, you know, I've witnessed that. And now in Pennsylvania,

there were Republicans drove that train of voting by mail. That was their ID. That was what they demanded. And in return, we dropped the straight party voting by just push a button to vote, straight down the entire ticket, ticket voting. And now, they had to turn their views because at that time the President decided that that's a terrible thing. So, I mean, you know, two things must be true. It's not outrageous to show a deed of vote. But voting by mail is an honorable

safe and secure way that Republicans across our nation have been doing it and doing it some in the most secure ways as examples. Giving there's non-citizen voting going on. What are the arguments that's made is that the Democrats opened the border, brought in a lot of non-citizens, gave them access to vote in some way, either mailing ballots without showing proof of citizenship or whatnot. And that really boosted Democrat votes across blue states. Is that fair or that unfounded? And just

that's a great point. And I am concerned about that. You know, hey, is there an issue? So, I just ran this. That is the Heritage Foundation, you know, they said that their database between 1999 to 2023, they identified 77 instances of non-citizens voting between 1999 and 2023. That's the heritage foundation. You know, that's, you know, there. So for me, that would identify that it doesn't seem that,

“you know, the heritage heritage foundation doesn't claim that 70, there's more than 77. So that's why”

I'm saying, if you're really serious and you want to have that, let's make it about ID, not all these other kinds of parts that delutes the core mission of like showing ID or making it more secure. So why have Democrats been so opposed, not just to this act, but generally to the idea of showing ID for voting. Many of the interviews and arguments that have been made by Democrat politicians in media

Democrats that they say that that's terrible. Why are they saying that? Because if it's such

“an obvious common sense, this action, 83% of voters supported, why are so many in the party? And this”

is where a lot of people have conspiracy theories that they're using at the harvest votes. And so on, why are they opposing it? What is actually going on? I can't speak for them. But what I've

saying is like, I refuse to, I'll never tell 83% of Americans that it's awful and terrible to show

ID to vote, you know? I said that publicly again and again and again, 71% of Democrats have no problem with it. And you want to know what really backed out up with Wisconsin. In April of 2025, they had a ballot initiative to show ID to vote. That passed nearly two to one. They also elected one of the most liberal members of now the Supreme Court in that same election. It's not controversial to vest majority of Americans. I'm never going to be in the business to tell 80% of Americans

that you're Jim Crow or you're trying to suppress votes. Prerna, well, let's come back to the DHS point you made earlier. You were one of the, you were the only Democrat actually to vote to fund DHS. But you did say that agents in Minnesota lost the plot, what's your red line on immigration enforcement? So what should I be doing? And what should I

not be doing? There should never be a red line. Never shut the government down. Just don't do that.

We used to be the party that we're fused to do those things. We were outraged, outraged, when Tuberville was jamming up some of the military promotions, freak out, freak out. And now here we're shut the whole damn government down. I was one of only two Democrats to push back in that last year. And now I'm on the only one. If it's wrong, but for them, then it should be wrong for us as well too. But just to focus on ICE, ICE is actions in Minnesota. Where do you think

ICE should be doing immigration enforcement and how versus what do you think they shouldn't have

been doing? Yeah, for me, you know, hey, I was, I was the Democratic lead on Lake and Riley bill

because that was a serious bill. They, you know, Katie Britt called me up and saying, hey, what do you think? And I'm like, yeah, 100%. Yeah, let's let's work together on it. That's a serious,

“that's a serious effort. And now I lead that and enough Democrats broke closure on that. That's why”

it's a law in America right now. You know, I like to think that my credentials on board of security as a Democrat is platinum. You know, and I even, I voted for no one of the few Democrats that hurt. I met with her, treated her with respect, you know, refused to use the kind of sexist and gross terms like ICE Barbie in those kinds of things, refused to do that. She absolutely lost the plot. I called for her to resign. She became a mayor. I was a Democrat calling out the mayor

because it was a disaster without a doubt. You know, we cannot, this is unsustainable and this is damaging our nation and making it impossible to deliver an American dream for any migrants at that point. Do you think that ICE's mandate should be to remove every illegal immigrant from this country? Or do you think that they should be going after just one group and leave others and we have to legislate? What's the right way for ICE to operate? You know, you have the vast majority of

Americans secure our border. They've done that without a doubt and deport every criminal. They've done. And now, you know, Pennsylvania, that's our top industry is farming agriculture and constantly, that's their issue. Labor Labor Labor Labor, it's really problematic. You know, targeting otherwise

“lawful migrants, I don't think that's what America really wants. And honestly, that's not what”

America needs. You know, you know, they are an important part of our economy and finding a better way to address that. I'm, hey, I'm here for that conversation. My wife was a dreamer. You know, I would love to work with the other side. You know, I shouldn't punish a two-year-old that was brought here, had no idea at that age. You know, so I think they've made some, you know, important contributions to our nation. I'm a pro-democrat. I'm a pro-immigration Democrat, but I'm the

also the only demographic use they shut our government down the way that's where I, and now I'm

a regime, you know, that like Iran is a good thing. So do you think that that creates a bad incentive

with the, when people call it anchor babies where an immigrant comes to the United States as a baby and then stays and the baby has citizenship, it seems to be one of the kind of big debate points right now. Well, I mean, for for me, I, I, what I will say is, is like if you secure a border that makes those kinds of things more and more difficult or unlikely to happen. Now, you know, back in 2023, you saw the numbers, 300,000 people showing up at the border. You know, that's the

side of Pittsburgh. I described that in terms of Pennsylvania. The, the size of Pittsburgh is showing up at the border. That's unsustainable. You know, we have to do something about it. You know,

“May Arcus had to go. He's been a liability. That's why I described him and I called her to, to go.”

Well, it's, why did, why did President Biden open the border? What was the motivation?

What had, I don't know, I'm a pro-immigration. I'll tell you that the truth is I was shocked

when, when they dropped article 42. You know, in my primary, it's like, we all ran on that. That wasn't controversial. I was done when they dropped that and you could see this, you know, right up after that. Was it to reduce labor cost or to bring in democratic voters? For what was the motivation do you think from the party? And you must speak to party leadership that tells you why they're justified or were justified for doing that when they did it?

I don't know, but I was, I was alarmed and I was honest. It's like, you know, for me, like, for any politician, if you were telling that people their eyes, that you're crazy, you're

“not right, you lose. You know, and we were punished. We were punished in 24. The border was a serious,”

serious failure as, as Democrats. So it's like, holding us accountable, and now this part of responsibility to learn from from that situation. Now, and I do hope, and I do hope, there are Republicans learned from Minneapolis doesn't help anybody. That doesn't, you know, doesn't help your cause, you know, in people that absolutely, uh, the optics, whether that's the optics or the kinds of tactics, any of that you're not winning anybody over. Right. So I want

to switch gears to my favorite topic, which is the fiscal condition of the United States. Government, we have $40 trillion of debt, and we're going to have a $2 trillion deficit this year, a trillion dollars of that. It's just interest on the existing debt that number is getting bigger and bigger every year. And a bunch of programs are going to run out of money, including social security, which is projected to run out of money sometime between college five and 10 years from now.

This is a classic debt debt spiral problem. You know, what is, how much does Congress pay attention to this problem? Is it something that's talked about? Because there's a lot of the conversation seem to be about what the polls say, so that people can get elected again, the next cycle versus looking at this big, looming debt problem we're facing and how we're going to address it.

“Yeah, that's a huge concern for me. I mean, you know, I'm, I'm old enough to remember when a”

billion dollars met something, or that was a lot of money. And now the trillions are becoming more kinds of, uh, it's not, it's kind of like social security, social security, for example. Now, they just need to make some small, small adjustments for actual on the actual aerial kinds of things. And that could extend it well into the 20, uh, to 2070s to the 2008s, just small, small kinds of things. That would require real leadership. And that would require them to just put down the

partisan guns and just stop attacking each other and find a real solution for all of Americans.

And now you'll never address debt until you both sides agree. We're going to stop tearing each

other apart. We're going to find a way forward. You know, I hope I hope more Americans want my views of why just turn it into just a professional wrestling, or do you really want to find a better one? And that's like effectively if you turn Washington DC as the Jerry Springer show, you know, you asked me earlier what's the leader of the Democratic Party right now. I would say it's TDS. That that is that's driving the conversation. If he supports, you know, he could come out

for ice cream and lazy Sundays, and now suddenly Democrats would hate it. We would want to vote it down. Yeah. Well, there's also a lot of discussion right now about fraud in the government. I don't know if you've seen these videos out of Minnesota, this guy makes surely doing them out of California. Yeah, let me say that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Like, absolutely. Like, why can't

Governor Newsom put out a disgusting video, implying that he's, you know, a pedophile or he's

“that that like why, you know, like, I mean, like, that's like kind of a smear, you know, like,”

you can, you may, you want to disagree with it, but to imply that someone, someone in one of the most gross kinds of terms like that. Well, it's like, hey, shouldn't we agree, like, you know, eliminate all the waste. If it exists under, under my perfume, let's eliminate it. Let's call that what it is. You know, I'm not going to call someone or imply that you're, you're a pedophile or you're, you know, going after kids in the gross ways. But what's crazy to me and so many other

people that have seen these videos is to then see reactions from leaders and the Democratic Party saying, we don't have a problem. This is racist. This is whatever, and denouncing that the reports of this. But when you see this fraud, it anchors everyone. You're spending money as a taxpayer, and then you're giving the money away to fraudsters. It should, it should, yeah,

“it should, it should. You should be angry. And, you know, like, fraud can happen on both sides,”

but when it's identified, I don't care if it's in a Democratic state. Like, we should all just acknowledge, maybe there is a problem here. This is part of the thing. If you tell voters that you're wrong or, you know, hey, it's no problem. There's nothing here. Then you lose. And, you know, that you, you want to turn that into, if you want to turn that into, um, like the border, you know, with Democrats in 2023. You know, we do that at our own peril. You're, you're so

rightly critical of so many of these points, John. Why are you still a Democrat? The past.

Yeah, it's so safe. Just past my staff are just handed to me. 51. You're kidding. Well, they went forward, huh? Yeah, it's going forward to debate. Yeah. Yeah. It goes to debate. Yeah. And so what do you think will happen there? Well, this last a couple days or week? I mean, how's this process going to go? I have no idea. I, I, I am not going to pretend to know exactly

how the next couple days are going to look. The question I asked just before that was, you know, you're rightly critical of so many of these positions that the Democratic Party leadership takes.

“Why are you still a Democrat? And you thought about switching parties?”

Because I am a Democrat. And it's not because I've changed. It's because, because, you know, parts of my party has changed right now. And that's, that's where I'm at.

I'm going to continue to be an independent voice. I'm going to call balls and strikes. I'm always

going to pick country over a part of my base or what they demand. Like one of the clear rising themes right now in this country going into the midterms and probably going into 28 for the presidential election cycle is the massive wealth inequality in this country. Do you think we have massive wealth inequality and is it, you know, can you identify the origin where is this coming from? I don't, I don't really know. But I don't hate billionaires.

I don't make them the problem. And now that with Democrats, we love billionaires if we're supporting our, we're supporting our causes or they're underwriting, you know, things that are near and dear to us. In fact, we actually have a billionaires, a Democratic governor, you know, that doesn't mean he's an old-a-gark and trying to destroy America. You know, so like it's about trying to be more honest and stop attacking each other and find what we can agree on now. But we live in the kinds of

attention to economy and just, you know, saying outlandish thing and making, you know, crazy statements, you know, yeah, that drives the clicks, but that's not governments. That's not good. Well, it's, it's on the ballot now in California, the paths of wealth tax and it starts as a one-time five percent tax for billionaires. But it gives the legislature in California the ability to lower the threshold and make it every year if they want to do and change the percentage.

Real conna and Bernie Sanders have talked about passing a national wealth tax. Do you think we are going to find ourselves in that conversation in 2021? And we're going to have a national wealth tax where eventually just like we started with a 1 percent income tax, eventually everyone will pay a significant percentage of their net worth every year to support government services.

I mean, Senator Sanders has never represented more than a very small, you know, state,

you know, like when, when a competitive state, so you have your own ideas and, you know, like we'll see what really is required to, to, to win, you know, well, so let me ask,

as the United China. China loves it. China loves it. China loves it. Yeah, let's say let's hand hand AI

“that race over to the Chinese. What do you think leaders in the party are supporting this idea?”

It's so obvious what's going to happen if we do this. But, you know, do you think AI is going to increase wealth disparity in this country? When a real, you know, competitive election, win one, then you can lecture me or you can tell me, hey, what's the right direction? Otherwise, you know,

like, it's like, they are, they are the part of the party that's so hyper critical, and now in

those kinds of excess is like, to fund the police and, and abolish ice and these landish kind of thing, you know, they're the same part of the party now that loves the dude with the Nazi tattoo on his chest. Right. And then I just want to cover agriculture real quick. I've heard reports that the vast majority of U.S. farms lost money on the Senate Act Committee, which is why I'm asking this.

“And this is becoming, I think, a big national issue that the majority of U.S. farmers lost money last”

year, if not for the federal government providing support payments, crop insurance, and would have

been one time bailouts. You think we have a path to fixing agriculture in this country and how do we

get farmers back on track where they can earn a living without requiring checks from the government? Farming is such a hard job. I absolutely were veer American farms, especially in Pennsylvania once, their job, you know, quite literally feeds us. I fully support all of their efforts. You know, I was deeply troubled by many of those tariffs. And also, the ones that I talked to, labor labor labor labor is made that very, very difficult. I, you know, we should celebrate and support

farmers because I know because I've visited enough farms to see how hard back breaking labor it is to just deliver food to your table. So that's part, that's part of it. And that's kind of connected to things. Thankfully, we have the kinds of abundance in our nation for our food. And now,

“why that's why that's part of the immigration conversation that's part of the tariffs and that”

wherever like that. So the kinds of things that are hurting a lot of the people that are just almost uniformly read parts of my state. Yeah. And just to wrap up, I mean, you said you want to save the Democratic Party, not a candidate, which, you know, you're repeated here today or Democrat, but, you know, with only 22% approval rating among Pennsylvania Democrats, I mean, how do you carry this forward. And, you know, what's the way to kind of bring this party out of the doldrums, if you

will, that there's a lack of leadership, or lack of moral clarity, as you call it? Well, as I said earlier, there was, there was, there was a pull out that was, it was current to that. And it has me around 50, 50, you know, that's, that's very more accurate. So I'm not worried about 28, you know, we have I ran. We have a lot of other things right now. So like, I'm just, I'm not, I'm not, you know,

the part of our games about something, you know, like, I've never felt better of just voting,

my conscience voting, country over party, and just following the moral clarity's in really, really important kinds of of things like destroying Iran, securing Israel, and standing with the Jewish community and Israel, after everything that's they've been through and how close, how much more optimism of, of real peace. You know, yes, there's a lot of warfare now, but then I think that's a path for, for more enduring peace. There's been a lot of genuine speculation

that you might run for president in 28, is that on the table? I, you know, it's like about 28. You know, I, I don't know what, what, what America wants or the direction, you know, I'm following what I've just said that's the moral clarity's in. Well, thanks for speaking your voice, Senator John Fetterman, I appreciate being with us on all in today. That's great. Thank you. I, yeah, conversations with anyone that's just a real conversation, calling people names and saying

outlandish thing, that doesn't make anyone, I don't know, like I refuse to engage in. So thanks, thank you. It's, it's a, it's a brother fresh air, honestly, and I really appreciate it. Thank you, John.