Dallas Bribers Club

A break-in isn't just about what gets stolen.

It's the feeling after.

“The sense that your home isn't safe anymore.”

Simply safe isn't just protecting your stuff. It stops intruders before they get to your door, protecting your family's ability to feel normal inside their own house. Unlike traditional security systems that only alert you after a break-in is already underway, simply safe is designed to help stop intruders before they get inside.

They've got smart AI powered outdoor cameras that detect suspicious activity at the perimeter in alert live USB's agents to step in. Simply safe agents assess the threat that intervenes through the outdoor cameras to scare off the trespassers and they call 911 dispatch. Our CEO recently had a simply safe system installed.

She said that it was installed in a couple hours. All the components were up and running seamlessly in no time. The system has outdoor cameras, got indoor cameras. There are temperature and water sensors. There are a bunch of motion and window and door sensors.

All the exterior cameras run on solar chargers to minimize maintenance. She is a huge fan and says you will be too. Right now you can get 50% off a new simply safe system. Go to simplysafe.com/curkid that's simplysafe.com/curkid for 50% off. And when you order, please write about Podsafe America.

“And how did you hear about a survey to let them know be sent you?”

Don't forget, there's no safe, like simply safe. Welcome to Podsafe America. I'm John Fever. I'm Dan Fiverr. On today's show, we recorded late so we could bring you our analysis of every single minute.

Of the unprecedented first of its kind, world historic Republican midterm convention,

in Dallas, where Trump bribed voters with $5,000 checks. He can't deliver, J.D. Vance tried to both position himself as the air to Trump's legacy, but also run away from its Republicans marked the 25th anniversary of 9/11 by accusing Democrats of supporting terrorism, and even John Feverman made a cameo. Then because this episode is dedicated to Republicans trying to sell themselves, you'll hear

love its conversation with the Republican candidate for Governor of California, Steve Hilton. That thing still happened and not a joke. Reach out. We said sure.

We'd love to chat. Have you ever been there, if you're out there? Call us back, maybe. We'd love to talk to you, too. We've been trying.

Okay. Dan, let's get right into it. On the off-chance, that you all weren't glued to the special two-night run of Donnie does Dallas, here's a taste of what you missed. And on June 14th, 1946, God looked down on His plan, paradise, and said, "I need a

caretaker, so God gave us Trump." God bless the greatest president in the history of this nation, Donald J. 12th. I discovered as a self-effacing man of superior intelligence, of empathy and compassion. It was an encyclopedic grasp of the issues and in molecular detail. Nobody knows that dumb has a be at the end of it.

Most of it. Do you end, man, that's fine. Give us rest. Extreme candidates won't rip that whole out of our chest. They hate our culture, they hate what it means to be American.

Please, if you don't mind, don't anybody go to the bathroom. But give it a heart party, our advocates for evil. He ran a campaign to beat me. He called it beat me. I don't know what the hell he meant by that.

Mohamed.

“I think we should call the hormone straight.”

We should call it the Trump. I should get something out of it. The Trump straight, because you know Lake Ontario, we're going to call that now Lake American. New Mexico.

We think it should be called New America. Someday they'll be a time when I don't get back to the original subject and then you can say he's had it. Please, people are set, so I'm asking you to pretend that I'm on the ballot. I'm on the ballot.

Please pretend that I'm running and get out and vote on November 3rd, or sooner. Because in actuality, I really am running. Now I'm biased, but I think that was a fantastic representation of all the programming from both nights.

That was mostly from the first night.

Yeah, same thing. Same messages.

Sometimes the same exact lines, sometimes they same people.

You see, that's super cut. You watch that super cut. You got the gist. You got the gist of the two-day convention in Dallas. We saved you about 18 hours.

Yeah. Fox News viewing. Yep, a lot of glazing of Donald Trump, a lot of scaring people about the terrorist sympathizing, comi, Democrats, and Hassan Piker, and that's about it. Dan, you were telling me earlier how much you loved those last couple rhetorical flourishes

from Donald Trump in that super cut about how he is on the ballot, pretend he's on the ballot. I'm actually running. He did it. He again.

He repeated. There was a refrain tonight. He reprised that in his speech, where we're recording this Thursday night. We hate ourselves. But he repeated that tonight many times as well.

So the message is clear. He wants everyone to pretend he's on the ballot.

“I think it's important to set the stage here for how all of this happened.”

Which is Trump gave a two-hour speech last night. Two hours. Two hours. Just try two hours. On Wednesday night.

Just try two hours. Tonight, J.D. spent vans speaks for a long time. We're going to J.D. vans a speech. And then Trump gets up there and says, I'm going to be brief, tired of speaking. I have invited this opera singer to perform for you.

I'm going to stand here and you're going to listen to his music. And then he gave, I think, about 30 minutes of the same speech for the night before. Yeah. Just a condensed version in his mind, condensed was that we were, and we were watching it. We're like, should we add some clips from this to the supermarket?

We're like, no, because it's literally all the same shit, except for one part that we may play at the end. Yes. Which is truly one of my parts. So now I think we have to play it.

It's hard to take any of this seriously, because it was so absurd and so bad. But the fact that Donald Trump stood up there at a time which is approval rating is in the low 30s. At a time in which we are mired in a war in Iran is caused oil prices when up ten dollars two day during the Republican convention diesel hit its highest price ever at many gas stations.

They don't hit 999 to gallon and they can't go higher. And you don't have another space to do this. I don't know.

They never anticipated diesel at this expense.

It's awful. It's going to make all the lives more expensive. And the hoothees are out there just about to control another straight. And the Trump would say, go out there and say, I'm on the ballot, which is the Democratic message.

That is what we want. We don't want this to be a race necessarily about Susan Collins or Mike Rogers or John to you said, this is about whether you want Donald Trump and try to everything else you want to send a message on Trump. And he's saying send a message to me.

The 60, some percent of you who are unhappy with my presidency, I'm reminding you today that I am on the ballot that it is about me.

“So if you're unhappy with me, you should vote.”

Now some Republican candidates in tough phrases did attend the event. And he said, was there, Mike Rogers was there, many did not. There was no Susan Collins, a lot of House Frontline House Republican candidates were not there either. Do you think that skipping this event as a Republican candidate was DUM?

I'm trying to understand the strategic logic behind Mike Rogers and John Houston going. Yeah. Is it that you need money and all of the Republican money is in Dallas? And so there are the Republican fundraisers in and around this. Is it that you were afraid that if you didn't go, you would anger Trump.

Yes. And he would then take it out on you in some way, shape, or form. I think that's most logical, most logical answer there.

Or is there some kind of calculation that swing voters are never going to watch this anyway?

And that if you are, especially for Houston, Rogers is a real head scratcher, but especially if you're John Houston and you're in a state that Trump won by double digits, swing voters aren't going to watch this speech or watch any of these speeches of this convention. But base voters who might be upset with you or might be thinking about staying home, they're not going to vote for shared round, but maybe they're not going to vote for John Houston.

They voted for Trump in 2024. Maybe they're tuning in on Fox and now they see John Houston at the convention, or I don't know. Yeah, it's, I mean, it doesn't hurt, like, it doesn't hurt. Like, so why wouldn't you go if it doesn't hurt?

“Yeah, I think that probably comes out, you're going to get, I mean, they've stood next”

to Trump a thousand times, they've praised Trump, they have, like, the base themselves for Trump. So it's not like you need this moment to do it.

just Trump wanting to feed his own raven to see go.

“But it's, you know, if you, I think the way that Republican strategists are like recounting”

this is our bases and probably just in China, if you look at the CNN polls and Michigan and Maine that came out, Democrats have a double decision to sue us and vanared, you see this across the board, we got to get the Republican base fired up. Here's the fundamental problem with that logic is that the sort of, the falsity and bargain

of Donald Trump for Republicans, always was he fires up Democrats, but he fires up Republicans.

But is not true anymore, is that Republicans are isn't enthusiastic about Trump as they used to be. His, the number to watch here is his strong approval among Republicans. That number is right now 20 points lower than it was, the beginning of his presidency, 20 points lower than it was right around election day in 2024 and 20 points lower than it

was in election day, 2018. Yeah. And so now you're just, you, independent this week, voters hate you. That's are looking, are fired up to run against you and you do, you don't have the same impact with the Republicans that you did before.

And you get a kind of feel that at the convention when Trump was speaking to. Yes, because even if you're not his, Trump, like this is what the, as you said, the strong approval is important, even if you're not pissed at him, like the whole feeling I got from that convention and his speech is especially is like, man, they're just out of gas.

It's over.

Like that party, like our party right now is there are debates and there's the center

left versus DSA and the progressives and old and young and everyone's have it. But like, at least everyone's like fighting about something, the Republicans are just like, there's, there's nothing new there. We've been dealing, this is, we've got been like 10 years of this now and it's like, it is, it's glazing, Trump and the Democrats are going to kill you.

That's it. They don't write anything else to say about anything and like their culture worship that they sprinkle it that is like also sounding extremely old and tired in the all the lines we've heard before. And in terms of like, people actually tuning in, obviously, you know, we're recording the

Thursday night. So we don't have the Thursday night ratings, but Wednesday night where Trump gave

“his to our speech, I think it was two and a half million people to just flat over what”

Hannity gets normally at the exact same time on Fox. Right. So it was just, so that's from Fox because CNN MS didn't carry it. The networks did not carry it. Oh, and in C span and newsmax, I guess, you could probably catch it there, but, you

know, that's just kind of speaking to the choir. So it doesn't sound like this. And I was looking at that, you know, I was looking at what's resonating newsletter, what's happening online, nothing, nothing about the convention was being discussed online today at all.

It's a real or breaking through or sorry. And it just, it's, this gets to your point that just everyone can feel that the Trump era is essentially over. He's not gone. He's still very dangerous.

So you can do very, very bad things. I mean, we're all living that. That's right. But his political relevance is over. He's less interested in the people.

He's less frightening to people.

“He is, he has ability to dominate the conversation is, is greatly diminished.”

He's just, he's still talking, fear of people listening for people care. And that just, you can feel that through the entire convention. Now, speaking of non official party conventions, have you heard of any big gatherings coming

up on the Democratic side, perhaps the history making, incredible gathering that's

going to come up in just a couple of months? Well, I have some of the smartest strategists, some of the least boring politicians. And I'm referring to the one, the only crooked kind, 26. I am. I am referring to the one and only crooked kind here in an organic plug.

Yes. We love an organic plug and to let everyone know that there are still tickets available. Not many, but there's still tickets available. There's still discounted tickets available if you become a crooked subscriber, which is, and by the way, it is a perfect time to become a crooked subscriber.

There's no better time. There's no better time. Because you get ad free episodes of all your favorite podcasts, and you get to support all the great work we're doing here, to try to push back against right-wing media. And so you just have to go to crooked.com/friends and become a friend of the pop.

I'm going to add to this because we did not do a good enough job pitching this. Yeah. We're sending an Elijah yelled at us. Yeah, it did. But we are using that shit out, man, but that's neither here nor there.

We are 60 some days in the election. Poles are coming out every single day. Some are good. Some are bad. Some are frightening.

Some are hopeful. If you want to survive, these, this next few months here, there's only one way to do,

Policoster with the end fiverr.

“How do you get Policoster with the end fiverr?”

Be subscribed. Anyway, I think that was a good plug. Yeah, that's just so the Elijah will be, get off our ass for a minute. So believe it or not, Dan, buried around the one hour mark of Trump speech on Wednesday night. There was something of an announcement, probably two generous to call it a policy proposal.

Let's listen. Only I can make this promise to you, and here is my promise. If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of

them, because of our economic, tremendous economic success, like in history, we've never

had anything like what's happening. But because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000. Yeah, sure, pal. Trump's biggest fans didn't seem totally sold on this one in part because it would cost

an estimated $1.3 trillion, and also it will never happen. Here's Fox's Laura Ingram asking Trump a pretty reasonable follow-up when she interviewed him on Thursday after the speech.

“I just give the money now if you have the money, I'll tell you what, because the Democrats”

can't do it, because with them it's negative growth, with us it's so positive. What? What do you think of this one? What do you think of this one? I was saying this to love it earlier, we did a YouTube thing.

It seems to me that the entire purpose of this was, there's a lot of people out there who don't pay a lot of attention to politics, and I'm going to try to fool them because if they are scrolling through their phones or looking at a screen and they see Trump wants to give $5,000, maybe they will have no idea that I could have given them a dividend over the last two years.

In fact, promised to do so, never did, even though I had a Republican Congress for the

last two years, and maybe they'll just not know any of that and just think, oh, a Republican and get $5,000, and they're just counting on those low information voters who don't pay much attention to politics to just to fool them basically. No one is that dumb. What goes along with being a low information voter America, I'm confident, there are

people who are already in Trump's cult who will believe him, there is no one who is skeptical

“of Trump who thinks he's going to give them $5,000, and they vote for Republicans.”

It doesn't survive like one Google search. Yes. Well, it's not even that. I mean, every person knows that paying someone for a vote is a crime. That's one.

Trump has already promised them a $5,000 dollar doge dividend, but she did not give. He also just has already been giving out money to people from the tariffs, but not to people to corporations. Mm-hmm. Like, it's so stupid.

No. The people who he's trying to fool are the people who are the most skeptical politicians, making insane promises and insane promise. This is another example that everyone from Trump to his aide, so the entire public party are just fucking mailing it in.

This is one of the stupidest, most embarrassing ideas that any politician has ever offered in the United States history. It's so insane. It's so stupid. It can't be done.

It costs basically the entire non-defense discretion, non-intitlement portion of the entire government budget for this. It would massively increase inflation. These are checks three times larger than the stimulus checks, which were limited people who made $75,000 or less.

So he's once you give $5,000 the Elon Musk for voting for him, like what a stupid fucking idea. This is not a, he's, he's going to give the $5,000, pretend to give the $5,000 to people who don't vote for him. Yeah.

That's the other thing too. Everyone gets it. It's fair. This is fair. Everyone, everyone gets the $5,000.

The billionaires, the billionaires, everyone. But no one's getting it because when he wanted to give like a $1,000 dividend or a $2,000 dividend or, or less, reporters went and interviewed all the Republicans in Congress and they all said, no, we don't want to do this because it would increase the deficit and increase inflation because we are in still an inflationary environment.

Thanks to Trump and his tariffs and his war. And so Republicans don't want to do it. And then he also said in an interview Thursday, oh, well, I don't think I need the Republican Congress to do this. I can just, I can just cut the check and give the money, which is also not true at all.

There's no money. There's no money. There's no money.

There is the cost of, they said, they pay for a tariff money for $100 billion.

That's the cost of the revenues is an order of magnitude greater than the, all the tariff money that we have brought in. About four times. But four times. Yes.

And we've already, we're already giving that money away back to Amazon, Apple, Walmart, etc.

Yeah.

It has been enjoyable listening to various Republicans try to defend this or at least answer

it.

“I think Ted Cruz was like, well, it depends on how it's structured.”

JD Vance was like, well, I think that maybe we could, we could make it so that the rich people don't get the $5,000 and also, you know, I think he said, oh, I think he just said, yeah, maybe the rich people won't get the $5,000 and then didn't mention it at all in his speech tonight. In fact, you know, one mentioned it in their speech, but Trump, I don't think.

The time story about how Republicans were really super into this idea had this great line of that, how defending the policy was left to Trump's more intellectually versatile allies. Who worth, who are they? Take Cruz. That's true.

That is true. Ingram did manage to get one clear definitive answer out of Trump on a related issue. Take a listen. Are you going to campaign later than you've ever campaigned in this month? But isn't this just as important, Mr. President?

I mean, your whole legacy is on the one. It's never is important. Look, I'm campaigning for other people.

When you say my legacy, I'll be a block.

I'll end up being a blocker. I'll block all their bad stuff for two years. It won't be the same, but I'll be a blocker. What can I tell you? It's interesting.

I didn't see the end of that before.

“He's kind of resigned to potentially losing this thing.”

It is. It was a great question from Laura Ingram. It's not the answer she expected. That was going to say, yeah, it was not the answer to that. More of a bad answer than a good question.

But he got caught in his own trap there, because it's like, pretend I'm on the ballot. It's all about me. It's all about me. He's just like, okay, we'll talk about you. Are you going to campaign really hard?

No. Well, the difference here is, well, it was on the ballot last time, but it's not just his presidency. His freedom. Yeah. His freedom.

His freedom. And like, he also is going to, I mean, he's going to lose, if he loses, the midterms. He's just going to say the Republican sucked. Yeah. They ran away from him.

Yeah. And they weren't good candidates, and he tried his best, and he campaigned as hard as he could. But like, what are you going to do? It's not Trump.

I tried to make it Trump, but it wasn't the real thing. People are smart, and they can see when it's the real thing on the ballot or when it's not. And I tried to say just pretend, but I guess people just can't pretend. They're smarter than you give him credit for.

So that'll be that. [MUSIC PLAYING] That means it's time for what? It's time for fall. All right, and you know what, Autumn's all about.

Getting shit done. All right, we're getting back to school. The war in Iran's happening again. Oh, yeah. All right, and you got to get your goddamn vitamins.

All right, get your greens in. Yeah, you're all fucked up. You're fucked up without these goddamn vitamins. Look at you. Look at that powered skin of yours.

Supposed to summers over, you didn't get a tan. You wasted it. You wasted it. It's done. It's done.

Look forward, you got to get a scoop. Eight ounces of cold water every morning for the day starts. The day's support, the day starts, running you. Who's in charge of your life, you? If not, takes a major one.

Get some goddamn control of yourself. A major one is the daily health drink with a multivitamin pre-improbiotic superfoods in any accidents. One scoop, eight ounces of water. It helps you stay in a routine and keep up with your wellness goals.

High quality and nutritional support. Save every single day. No matter where you start your morning, the next day in a formula that there are 75 plus ingredients clinically shown to support good health, fill common nutrition gaps, and improve key nutrient levels within three months.

Age one is great. It really fits into your routine. It's the easiest habit. You know, look, every morning, you don't know what you're going to eat that day, but whatever.

For me, whenever I have breakfast and I make sure I have my vitamins, I have age one. I have something to make sure that I'm like starting the day right.

“And you should do that too, because God knows you're f***ing up everything else.”

All right.

Limited time, save 20% on your first subscription order of AG1 next gen or AG1 Pro at drink

AG1.com/curcut that's drink AG1.com/curcut. Positive America is brought to you by Helix. If you're like me, sleep is very, very important to your life. If you get a good night's sleep, you're better at work, you're happier at home, you're more productive, you feel better, your body feels better.

And if you get a bad night's sleep, all bets are off. Helix sleep starts with a right mattress, upgrade your sleep quality with a Helix mattress. How do you know which mattress is right for you? Take the Helix sleep quiz and it'll match you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences and sleep needs.

They have over 20 mattress models so you can find the perfect model just for you. Helix delivers your mattress right to your door with free shipping in the U.S., the happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk-free customer first experience, designed to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress so you can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges.

Plus, Helix offers a 120 night sleep trial in a limited lifetime warranty. I love our Helix mattress. It is super comfortable. We have one in our guest room. I've slept on him many times, whenever a guest comes to our house, they say they love this

mattress. They tell us how comfortable it is. It shows up really fast and easy.

Go to HelixSleep.com/kerket for 27% off-site wide.

This offer is exclusive to positive America listeners that's HelixSleep.com/kerket for 27% off-site wide. HelixSleep.com/kerket. Before Trump took the stage to close things out on Thursday night, Jayney Vance gave the keynote address.

It was hard to cut down such a masterpiece to just a few highlights, but we tried. Let's listen. Jim McGraths are running candidates who will tell your children what they're allowed to say,

“how they're allowed to live, and importantly, who they ought to hate, because that's what”

the Democrat party is about in 2026. It's not about you.

It's about foreign fraudsters, and it's about who they hate, and we got to send their

asses back in November. The country does not belong to the radicals. It does not belong to the bureaucrats. It does not belong to the highest bidder. This country was handed down to us by our parents, and their parents before them.

We received this national birthright, and we are going to fight for it by elected Republicans. This no good. We just had a protestor interrupting us and waving the Mexican flag. Well, well, my friend, if you love Mexico so much, get your ass over there, I'll buy in the plain ticket.

If you ever feel and down about our country, ladies and gentlemen, just take a look at the beautiful ladies right behind me. Ladies, I'd like to know what you had to drink, because I'll take two of them when I'm done. What did that mean, do you think?

I drink. They were drunk, and they were being rowdy, and I didn't notice it until he said it, and then I was watching them for the rest of his speech, and they did seem a little boisterous, perhaps? I don't want to catch up.

I don't want to surprise that people being excited to have a speech as the assumed they were drunk. What do you think, Dan, did he win you over? What's that speech? He did not win me over. I am very curious of your take as a speechwriter on this speech.

I'm going to tell you right now what I think the reception is going to be. I think that the sort of the press and the establishment, sort of the political establishment that writ large, is going to be very impressed with, at least the reception to the speech. In view it as the official, unofficial, I guess, kick off of fans' presidential campaign murky made his most compelling case for himself today.

“That's why I think it's going to be covered.”

I do think they'll definitely see it as the unofficial kick off, and I can't tell how they'll receive it, but why do you think they will receive it well? Because people generally don't applaud when he speaks, and they applaud it here. And I think how would you describe the case he made for himself? Not breaking, not stepping on as a rake in the middle of it.

I don't think he made a very good case for himself, but I don't think the people that sort of the figure skating judges who grade these things, pay a lot of attention to the consistency of the argument or how the message plays outside the room. I think in this room, he did a much better job of sounding kind of sort of sane and coherent compared to all the other speakers who sounded fucking bananas, Trump most included.

I think he's got a potentially unsolvable problem, more, yeah, that's for sure.

Which is like, and now, I'll start with your first point about how it gets judged.

Like, my favorite line from you has been the Democrats are like reading the stage direction. Yes. It's like, oh, I can think about now when I see a Democratic politician. J.D. Vance to me is the Republican version of reading the stage directions. And he's also the Republican version of another problem.

We have in our party, which is the too many front-of-the-class students who are like, I'm going to study my way to the presidency and I'm going to make sure I listen to all my strategists and do all the things that I'm supposed to do and that pull well and I'm going to write the speech in the right way and I'm not going to be crazy like this one and I'm

“going to walk this tight rope and I think he is a smart person.”

I don't think J.D. Vance is dumb, he's very smart. And so I think he is thinks that he is going to study his way to the presidency. The speeches work on the speeches, deliver the speeches that he's supposed to give, deliver the messages that he's supposed to give. And it is going to fall incredibly flat because it doesn't sound authentic.

He sounds so funny.

That is absolutely right.

“But that is no longer, I think, how he is going to be judged as the 2028 race goes on.”

There is no other Trump and Trump is crazy and then there's Republicans who sound crazy and all that kind of stuff. I just think that his problem is not that he sounds too crazy. His problem is that he's too fucking boring and funny and smart me. I just don't believe that he sold any of those fine lines that I'm sure they pull well

but they're not crazy, but I just don't think it's going to wear well. Yeah, I don't think it's going to get any, I don't think it's going to get anyone excited. And I don't think he is going to be able to align the, I think he's not as smart as he thinks he is. Which is he thinks that he had this whole part in the speech about, he talks about Charlie

Eric, right, this is the day, the first anniversary of Charlie Kirk's assassination.

And he remembers Charlie and then he uses Charlie to talk about the war in Iran. He doesn't say Iran but he says Charlie hated war and I know that there are a lot of young men who love Charlie and were big fans of Charlie are now or disillusioned and if you're disillusioned and maybe it's about war just know that like you can have a disagreement and be on a different side of one issue and still not throw out the baby with the bath

water and vote for the crazy Democrats vote for us. And it's like, and if he thinks that he is going to solve the problem of Donald Trump breaking his promise to not get involved in more wars by like some rhetorical flourish, what we're using Charlie Kirk's death, like I just, it's not going to work, it is too cute by half.

I want to stipulate a few things here. Sure.

“I was speaking to how I think the press is going to receive it and that's a question of low”

expectations. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I think the expeditions of your advance are understandably quite low because he's a pretty

terrible public speaker from a pure performance, right? Like the, how he sounded, how he was received, how he filled the podium. This was probably one of his better moments and there are not a lot of good moments. So it's not saying a talk. I think I agree with you that J.D. events, that's where I see things is, but I think

his bigger problem is that the voters are smarter than J.D. events, things they are. Yeah. Because everything, like you can listen to it and it is, like he really is like a softest. Like it is, he's weaving these arguments together and in, like each individual sentence

makes sense.

“Then you step back, particularly if you have a new nightboats on this, you'd go back and”

read the speech afterwards and it makes no fucking sense. And it's like full of inherent contradictions. His problem is, and this is nothing to do with the kind of speech, like how he delivers a speech, even becomes a great excuse to just not kind of solve the problem, is the only good politicians or politicians who truly understand who they are.

They've gone through some period of self-discovery and J.D. events is no idea who he is. He is just, he is a, he is a shape shifter, a code switcher for whatever works in the moment, right? He is one way, when he's in, at Ohio State, he's one way that I've really lost school. He is one way when it seems like Trump's going to lose.

He's one way when he thinks Trump's going to win. And he is just constantly trying to do what he thinks makes sense in that moment. Because he did, there is no set of values or morals or personal code that dictates how he should respond in a moment. He's dict, and so that in authenticity is what, that is like the core defining principle

of every losing presidential candidate of this half century. It is, it's what he killed Al Gore, it's what killed John Kerry, it is what destroyed Mitt Romney, it is what Hillary Clinton, like across the board, this is why people lose and he has all the makings of a losing presidential candidate. Now, Democrats have to dominate the right person because sometimes they candidates do win.

But he is very, very flawed candidate. But you could, like I was watching that speech and every single line, you're like, I know what he's doing here. He was like hitting the Mahan notes at the top, where he's talking about checking all the boxes.

Checking all the boxes there exactly. And then even the way he handled the heckler seemed, I mean, we were all joking false flag flags, because it was so like, there's the heckler, I'm going to stop the speech. And I wrote this whole speech, but now I'm going to have to do, and he actually said this, now I'm going to have to do something different and turn to the heckler and go back

to him and then he will be like so proud of himself, and it's like, you know, maybe it was just in the moment, and it wasn't staged, whatever. I'm not going to fucking throw any, any conspiracies, but it was like, even that, which was potentially ad lib, seemed like it was staged, and I mean, it's just, it's so, phony, it's

You really saw that, not just in the speech, but when he had been doing that interview a few

weeks ago, where he's like, decides he's like, this is the moment, I'm going to defend Ushia against Abdul, I'll say I'd add, it just seems like, even that, it seems the whole thing about his pop-all and Abdul, it all seems, and that part, like that would work, his

“whole, you know, retort to Abdul, that would work if people didn't remember that he was”

the guy who went out there and said, yeah, we pushed these completely unproven false conspiracies that Haitian immigrants were eating pets because I disagree with Joe Biden's policy of allowing them to legally be in this country. And so I'm going to admit that we just pushed false conspiracies because we wanted to get attention to that fact.

It's like, we all remember, you said that. So like, you can't be all offended by accusations of racism now, and xenophobia now, when we all just remembered what was happening in that campaign and suddenly be so offended by all of this, I mean, even his like, like, he had this line about Telerico, right, and he's doing the like, Telerico can't stop talking about transgender children, which is crazy

to him. You know, right? It's like, there's one time a one interview where they were like, Telerico's like, I love transgender children because he just seen them that day and they've made a whole thing about it, right?

And so his line is a guy that age who was so obsessed and focused on transgender children,

I don't know about you, but I never want to see that guy's web browser history.

It's not a good place. That is a line that also wouldn't survive one follow-up question from a interviewer. It's like, oh, so you're saying that what evidence do you have that James Telerico, like, wants to fuck kids? Is that what you're, because you're talking about his web browser, like, what are you

talking about? I would love to hear JD events answer that because he would fall apart because he, it's a line. He can't, like, Trump could handle that. You asked Trump that question. He would

“do his Trump thing and he would get past it and it would be like, oh, what's Trump?”

Whatever. JD events couldn't get away with that because there is no answer to why did you, why did you say that line? Yeah, yeah. What did you make put aside Vance's performance, like, this was the clearest distillation.

And one thing I say about the speech is just, it was really a lot about him for just a mid-term campaign speech. So he really was viewing this, this is sort of his introductory presidential

election speech. But let's just put that aside for a second. This was the clear

installation of the thing of what their campaign strategy is, which is, the, even if you don't love the Republicans and the things we've done, it's not as good as you want, pressure is so high. We are at war. The Democrats are fucking crazy. For if do like, do they handle that part well? Is that strategy? Where are you at all? I don't think you handle like, again, he went through the, they deleted tweets of

“many, many a Democrat. Well, that's what I'm saying though. It's like, if I was”

trying to make that argument, I think there are maybe not like, okay, saying that, you know, he's, he's talking about the deleted tweets from Will Lawrence and Michigan seven, where he said, like, fuck the nuclear family in a tweet, right? I think it is hard to pin that on the entire Democratic party, since no one else has said anything close to that, even their deleted tweets. And so what she's again is something that's easy

for someone to find out. And so if I was going to make that argument, there's plenty of other positions the Democrats have to have taken and maybe a lot of Democrats have taken that I would try to build an argument around about why those positions are out of step with the American people, just like not picking a few tweets from like one house candidate here and one house candidate there, I just think that act is going to get old. The whole

party has this problem. Trump had this problem especially in 2020, which is like J.D. Vance talks like he is so fucking online. Yeah. Like that's, and the reason we all get it and and probably the reporters too, I mean, to your earlier point about how they judge it, like everyone who is super online and super engaged in politics and political fucking junkies who can't get up their phones, know all the things J.D. Vance was talking about. He's going to

get out on that trail as a candidate for president and start saying some of the shit and most people are going to be like, what do you mean? What are you talking about? Yeah, this is that you've hit on his big, like Trump is overly versed in his, in the lore of magas stuff and right-wing media. That's because now he harp prints it on the hands of tone, but J.D. Vance is like in the dark quarters of the internet. His brain is, is Trump's brain is not worth by the algorithm because

he's not looking at the internet in that same way. J.D. Vance is his and he is emblematic of this much bigger problem that you see with Republican strategists, which is their brains are all pickled too. And you know, whenever I'm doing political experts react in reviewing Republican ads, they're all two steps over the line because they require some sort, they both require a belief

dystopian world where, you know, MS 13 is killing everyone on the street corner and you have to

understand like chapter and verse of the lore of maga and like that J.D. Vance has it, but that's speech at that problem. Like you and I were like, that's well Lawrence's tweet, but no one knows who will Lawrence is or that's his tweet or what the fuck is talking about? Right. Like, look, he's he is trying to put a, like, I think every vice president who's running probably has to look at the president be like, okay, what, what don't people like even in my party about the president

that I served with and like, what's my, how am I going to differentiate myself? Mostly. Not everyone does that apparently. Not everyone does that but this is successful. And clearly in this speech, you could tell that J.D. Vance, like, there's so much talk about family and kids and

“he wants like a family-friendly maga version. And that's what he's going to try to put forward.”

It's very like national conservatism. He wants to like sand the rough edges off that. He doesn't

want it to appear to mean. But like if he does have any kind of belief, it is the belief that he has espoused many times in speeches that we probably won't hear again where he talks about like it's blood and soil nationalism. Yeah. Like that's that is what he believes if he believes anything. And I think he's smart enough to know that that doesn't wear well with the general electorate at all. And so he's trying to sand down the rough edges on it. But it's just, I don't, it's going to be

hard for him. It's going to be hard. But we'll see. Did you see Marka Rubio today asked about his potential plans to run for president in 2028 and he said, quote, I don't know what the future holds, but I have no plans at this time. At this time, did you take anything from at this time?

“Or do you think it's just reading too much into it? No, I think it took a very specifically”

at this time. Meaning he's keeping the door open. Yeah. It's going to be interesting to see how

that friendship with fans that close friendship wins over time. And then if we can get a Van's Rubio headset, Ted Cruz primary. Oh my god. Ted Cruz is definitely serious. And he's talking Ted Cruz is running. He hates fans. You know, we make it. Wow. I'm trying to think of that. That's a quite a stage. I don't think Rubio and Van's both run together, right? My suspicion is Rubio does not run, but Van's obviously runs and maybe Cruz runs too. Yeah, I think that's probably right.

Anyway, we have enough time to talk about that later. You're hearing this on the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and while Republicans chose not to align the convention with the day itself. The people on stage and on Fox News did take the opportunity to paint Democrats as terrorist sympathizers, particularly Muslim Democrats like Abdul El Said and Zoran Mamdani. Let's watch. I know what they're capable of. And I know what happens when America becomes afraid to call evil

by its name. September 11th isn't something that we deserved, no matter what Abdul's buddy say. Abdul's is funding his campaign with money from terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. He wants to represent Palestine. I want to represent Michigan. And on 9/11

“could anyone have imagined that Comrade Mondami would be the mayor of New York?”

When he goes down to 9/11, I hate to even say this, Laura. But you know, it's a message to Osama bin Laden that look. We conquered New York. It's going to be a tough message to deliver. Yeah, there's a lot of Osama bin Laden. There's a lot of questions about what's going on there. One, that crazy woman was a Izzy city council woman in New York. So that's not just an official. That's cool. That's not just a fucking random guess. Yeah, I was. I had seen next up a thousand

times and it wasn't until you told me that she was an election official, paid for with taxpayer dollars. People in New York have voted for her. Something she has received some votes from people. There's just like we are afraid to call evil by its name. Is this name evil? Is that what Mike Rogers is saying? Or if we stop saying evil now, like I'm not sure what he what what is going on there? It is true that no one on September 11, 2001 could have imagined

my daddy would be mayor because he was nine. So that was surprising. I mean, where do you make of all of this? This has been a real drum beat that is now crocheted out here on the anniversary of 9/11 with, and mostly it's about a duel in Michigan. I mean, they're still doing it. It's about a songpiker. It's about a songpiker. Well, I think it's mostly about a duel, but it's trying to, they're using Hassan Piker as the easiest way

to try to stop a duel from winning. I just am not sure. Like this is Fox has been doing this for 25 years now. There's this, there's been this sense that after 9/11, the way to win was to portray democracies on the side of Al Qaeda. And that worked in 2002, worked in 2004. It's not working in

I just, there are a lot of things that they are going to do. Usually, I'm not even that is just pure

anti-Muslim bigotry. Nothing else. It's just incredibly offensive. I'm just openly racist in every way, shape or form. The, there are a lot of things that are going to do to try to paint Abdul outside of sort of the mainstream American political conversation. A lot of it is going to be racist. It is going to be quite a sense of. I really don't think the one thing that Hassan Piker said, which he has a apologize for about 9/11 is a particularly effective attack.

Do you think it's some even more effective when they spend a lot of time with the convention showing giant photos of Hassan and a spito? I don't know how that would affect the Republicans. I'd like to see their web browsers. Alright, one last topic to touch on here, reluctantly on Wednesday evening, John Fetterman made a surprise appearance by video to introduce his fellow Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick. Let's watch.

“Mayor John Fetterman, Pennsylvania. Yes, I'm a Democrat. Why am I here talking to you today?”

Because, well, I'm a common sense Democrat. I'm always going to stand with America.

I'm always going to reject the extremes in socialism and that anti-American way of life. I have this opportunity to introduce this great American, a great senator. And yes, he's in a different party, but I'm proud to come him as my great friend. So for everybody in Dallas, I'm here to introduce King McCormick. Compelling a piece of content regardless of how you feel about his appearance.

So this got a lot of attention. Of course Democrats were already fuming at Fetterman for closing up to Republicans. Love and I talked about this on

YouTube on Thursday, but would you like to weigh in on this? I find it very

“irksome that he did this. I think that the fact that John Fetterman today is the exact opposite”

of what John Fetterman ran on only four years ago. And that is incredibly frustrating and it is a real disservice in betrayals of the various Pennsylvania. But people want to let you in on a secret. We have one goal and one goal only. Keep John Fetterman in this party for the next two years. Until he loses his primary in 28, but she will certainly lose because there's a perverating wing Democrats is like 45 points underwater. So it sucks. It is annoying. He's still

both with his 90% of the time. He's mostly just trolling us all of the time by going on facts news and doing very, very annoying things. And obviously the thing he has said about Israel and about people who are good faiths, critics of Israel incredibly offensive and terrible. But like we're stuck. We're stuck with John Fetterman for two years. Because if he leaves makes it that much harder to get the sentiment journey. I, yeah, I thought it was awesome. And then

I saw like he put out a statement right afterwards and said, I'm still a Democrat. And if we win and take back the Senate, I will be the 51st vote for Democrats like I promised I would be or something to that effect. Yeah. And so like now he could change his mind of course. But if that's where he is right now, then that's where he is right now. And you know yelling about it, flipping out about like what I just, what is it going to do? What is the purpose? What

like what is the, what is the, what is the usefulness of this? Each individual person can be mad and should be, I'm particularly if you're a better Pennsylvania should be mad. The people of power in influence from the party who are like, get out of the party. Not helpful. We need him in the party, unfortunately. No, and, and the reason we need him is, I said this before, but say it again,

“like having him as the 51st vote, if that's what he is, could be the difference between,”

you know, replacing San Melito or Clarence Thomas or God knows someone else with Eileen Cannon for 40 years on the Supreme Court or not. So it's like, you know, and yeah, he has broken, he has voted to confirm a lot of Trump's pointies, cabinet officials. He's broken with the, the Democrats on some like government shutdown stuff. But judges, 42 out of 46 Trump, Trump judges, he is voted against. He and he is not voted for a single appellate court judge

from Donald Trump. So even if it's just judges that he's voting with Democrats on and just voting with Democrats to make a Democratic majority leader leader of the Senate, that's good enough till 2028. It is good enough. No, it's that's fun. That's what we got. Yeah. All right, Dan, before we go,

night speech, given again, on Thursday night, there was one new part that we should, we should leave you all with. Let's take a watch. Please raise your right hand. I pledge to the greatest president in the history of the United States. That loves us so much. He can't even breathe. That I will go out with my family, my friends. I'll do it anyway. I don't care if I'm registered and not I'm going to try it. Sheet like

hell, like they do. And we are going to vote on November 3rd or we are going to vote before that.

“You know what happens if you don't vote. You go to hell. You know. Take it from that guy. That's what I'm”

taking. That's not a list of my brothers. Go vote. Go vote. Do register. Go vote. No cheating. I don't think you're going to have to. No, I don't think so either. Go vote. Go vote. All right, when we come back, Republican candidate for governor of California, Steve Hilton. Pots of America is brought you by built. Here's a question. Are you getting rewarded for

paying your rent or mortgage right now? If the answer is no, you need to check out built.

Becoming a bill member means earning points on every housing payment no matter where you live. Bill points can be redeemed for flights, hotels, lift rights, amazon.com purchases, future housing payments and more. You can get all these great things. There's restaurants on there. You can get built home delivery powered by go puff gift cards, built new AI neighbor in concierge. Doesn't just answer questions. It executes tasks from paying your rent and

handling a lift to booking dinner reservations across 50,000 plus partners. It handles your to do list while automatically applying your membership benefits. First, download the built app.

Second, link any credit or debit card to the app. So purchases at your local spot

become even more rewarding. And third, ask the neighbor in concierge in the app pretty much anything. And it'll alert you about exclusive member benefits near your home. Download the built app and join the membership for where you live at joinbuilt.com/curcut. That's J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T.com/curcut, use our link. So they know. We sent you. He's the Republican nominee for governor in the state of California. Steve Hilton,

welcome to the pot. It's great to be here. So I want to start by saying that I appreciate that you reached out to the show to hum and talk to us. I give you a lot of credit, especially when we have not been able to book Democratic candidate, Havier Basera. Is that right? We have we tried in

“the primary. We are still trying. I believe we have not heard back from our most recent”

inquiry. Well, maybe he'll do it. Maybe the best service I can give you is like, finally you'll get Havier. Now, I think it's going to work actually. You actually do. Now, I want to start with this. What is your pitch to Democratic voters in this state? Yeah. Maybe frustrated with Democratic governance here, but cannot imagine voting for a candidate endorsed by Donald Trump. I totally get that just to be clear. I'm on the road the whole time in

California and we're doing events up and down the state town halls hundreds of them now and increasingly Democrats are coming and they ask questions about that. And so I really understand of most of my friends, Democrats and most of my life, actually, my friends have been on the other side of the political divide. So I totally get it. That's the first point. And it's a totally

“reasonable question. And I think that the simple answer for me is that I'm not, first of all,”

I'm running for government and not him. Secondly, I'm not an ideal log. I'm not particularly tribal actually when it comes to politics. Most of my career has been in business. I'm a pragmatic kind of problem solving kind of person. We can all see things are going wrong in California.

I just want to fix what's wrong about this beautiful state that's so amazing in so many ways,

but we can all see it's frustratingly off track, everything's so expensive, we can get into that. But you're not going to get someone who's trying to tell you how to live or what to do or impose any kind of, you know, worldview in that sense, you're just going to get someone who wants to make it easier to live to run a business, do something about some of the visible problems we have like homelessness. That's the pitch really. You can still be anti-Trump as many millions of

Democrats in California are strongly so and vote for me. You don't have to change your party, you don't have to change your politics. You just have to vote for change in this election. And

you know, better than most in elections the whole time. Actually, in this instance in California,

“there's another word that I think is just as important and that is balance. So we've had 16”

years now where one party's been running everything. And I just think most people would agree that's not healthy, whoever it is in history when you've got that kind of political dominance by one party, whether that's right or left, it ends badly. And I just think having a bit of balance in the mix, it's very likely that not just that Democrats will control the legislature after this year's elections, but it'll continue to have a super majority. So we're just talking about

you know, this is not a mega takeover of California. This is just a bit of common sense balance in the mix. So I think that for me and I assume for a lot of others to be open to voting for someone who's not just endorsed by Trump, but supports you continue to support Donald Trump. You believe he's a good president? No, I don't agree with everything. He's done not at all. And I think but do you support Donald Trump right now as you're sitting here at this table? Well, would I vote

for him again? I mean, he's not on the ballot. I don't I haven't really thought about that. It's a sort of you don't know right now. I'm calling. I'm saying, do you support Donald Trump? Donald Trump is the current president. Do you support him? Do you want to have a question? I disagree with a lot of the things. Do you think he's a good president? He's doing. I think the again, I think these are too broad. So I think it comes to specific things. And that's fine. But I mean, I'm pushing

on that. I'm sorry. I want to move off of Trump, but I think the problem right is that it be nice if we could separate what's happening in Washington, what's happening here. But I think there's it matters, right? Because there's a threshold question for people who may be bothered by what they see as kind of feckless misrule that we have in California. I am, right? But I worry, right? That like I would love to vote for a change, right? I worry that Javier Bacera doesn't

represent that change. But there's threshold moral questions that anyone I could possibly support

“would have to pass. And I want to challenge you as to whether you pass those. That's why”

massive, possibly specifics. Let's do it. What are you worried about? So you said recently that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Yes, right? However, in 2020, you said it wasn't a fair election right after you said that you wanted McConnell to have a full Senate investigation into the 2020 election to be majority leader. You said the FBI directly interfered in the 2020 election as recently as May, you're refused to answer us to weather Biden won. Now I understand why you

would say now and I'm glad in July you did say Joe Biden won the election. Fine. I always said that,

by the way, that may think is weird. I know exactly what you're talking about. It was a, it was a classic kind of on the campaign trail thing. I was in, we were on the road and it was I think you took about the MSNBC MSNBC. Exactly. And I've always said that. I've always given that answer. I've never maintained anything that I've never said anything different. And so they kept going on about it. I said I've already said it. I've said it. So I don't think I've ever, you have

involved on this issue. Not on that one. Now, the other thing, on the, on the who won the election, no, I've never believed anything different. On those specific things like immediately after the election when there was a lot of conversation about what happened and so on. Everyone was saying what I was saying then, which is, okay, let's abide and we're saying that. Mitt Romney was saying that. More of everything we're saying was that we should have, you know, that questions have been raised

about the election. We've got to make sure everyone's, you know, those questions have put to rest and properly investigate. This is where I think you're very, very smooth, but you know,

“that's what Romney and Biden were saying. Very different than what you were saying. You were saying”

that the election is in dispute that America's becoming a banana republic. You said, you've recently said our electoral system is a joke, but if it's in California, even the New York Times said that, we take too long to count our ballots. Agreed. But what I'm hearing right is you're saying

that, oh, I always believed that Joe Biden won the election. However, there have been times that

I've been reluctant to say so. And I support someone who is lying about the outcome of something fundamentally sacred in a democracy. But I believe Donald Trump, I supported Donald Trump's election in 2024, even though that's true. Even though he denied the results of an election that you're saying Joe Biden won fair and free in a democracy. Again, I think we've got to be really precise about it. I think everyone can see that the 2020 election was really messed up. It was in

the COVID was going on. Yeah, very, a large number of last minute changes were made to the voting system that were done in a bit of a rush driven by the need to accommodate COVID rules and people couldn't, you know, like, okay, we've got to do mail in voting because people can't show up. All these things were done. But you've also perceived this as what I mean. Now, I think you're saying better. I think it was a uniquely messed up. But you also said it was because Democrats wanted

mail invoting would help them. Yes, I still believe that. I think that's what. Now, I think because

of there was sort of a once-in-a-century pandemic, you know, you think it was a procrastination.

“There's, I think, you know, there's no question that they believe, I think they still believe.”

You know, why did Democrats enact ballot harvesting? For example, in King California, all these different rules, the seven day counting off election day. I think that they believe there, but because they're postmarked by election day. Well, but not necessarily postmarked, you can hand-write it. You know, there's all these things that people just look at them, look at including the York Times, as I say, and say, "Look, come on. These things just don't

pass the smell test in terms of what makes sense for making sure people, you have elections that people have confidence in, we get a result quickly." And I think 2020 was a uniquely messed-up election. And I think that the criticisms I made at the time and still have a totally reasonable.

Now, in terms of the outcome, I mean, I've never challenged the outcome. I really haven't,

“but the points I make made then, I still would reiterate now that I think that there were”

problems with how those changes were made. They were rushed through. That meant that you had all this kind of swirl of, you know, of complain and uncertainty and whatever. Well, you, and see, I think that that's, but I think that's, you know, that was 2020. It was the middle of the pandemic. You're trying running election in the middle of a pandemic, changes were made to the system. And I think that they were done in a rush and in a way that undermined confidence in

the election. And so I really believe that today. And so when Donald Trump, if questions are results in other elections, you think that is wrong. Yeah, I said, in relation to our elections here in California, you've just recently, for example. And you don't have, and, but you see, like, this is someone that is, for Democrats like me, we are trying to run a democracy and one of the, the great important things about a democracy is, you fight to the end, but you have some

forbearance that if you lose, you go home and you lick your wounds and then you fight a fight other day. What Trump doesn't agree with? Right. Right. Right. Right. And that's morally recognizable. Okay. Is it, what, is it reprehensible? Look, I want to, I, yeah, I'm sad, but this is why, but it matters. Right. I speak, this is a liberalising MSNL conversation, which is the reason that I find this conversation. I think it's, I think it's an extreme view to take this particular issue

and make it the determinant of an assessment about where who you are and what you believe. I think it's one of things, not one of many things. There's lots of reprehensible things about what politicians say and do. And so I just don't think it's how I, I don't, it's not how I think about stuff where you have a kind of litmus test that this is the one thing where you say, because because this all that person thinks that says that whatever, I'm not going to pay any attention to anything else.

And I just, that's not how I think about it. So I'm reluctant to give these sweeping assessments of things. I disagree with what has been said about the 2020 election. Yeah, I've said that many times. I also disagree with how it was conducted. Both things can be true. Okay. So you are the son of Hungarian immigrants. And I think you've talked quite

movingly about why your family left Hungary for the UK and ultimately for the United States.

And you've also talked about what it was like to be detained when, because you had a problem with your passport and there's a problem with the leave you're talking about. Yes, I remember that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I, and I, I think people would be interested to hear sort of like, why did your family leave Hungary? Right. And like, what are some of the ways in which that has, that is reflected in your politics? So there's three people involved actually.

My, my mother, my father, my stepfather, also Hungarian. My parents divorced when I was young. And England, my dad went back to Hungary. I really grew up with my stepfather. And so they

“came in different ways. My mom came, I don't remember the story now, but she was, I believe she was”

studying English at university in Hungary and then had an opportunity to go to England for a few months. I think this is right. I took them out to check with their after this. And then met my dad, who'd come to Hungary via Australia, where he went. He was a famous sports guy in Hungary. And he was the goalie for the national hockey team, played in the Olympics, went to Olympics. And then when he stopped playing, I remember that there's one story that I really remember.

But I do remember him telling me that after he stopped playing, he got into business. He had a paint factory.

“And I remember that, I didn't really understand what he meant. He went on and on about how”

the communist took his paint factory. And he was quite a stride and anti-communist. And he's quite well known. So he, he, he left in after 1956 when the revolution was crushed by the Soviet Union,

went to Australia with his first wife. They split up. He went to England. And so they all came

slightly different ways. I think then they met in London, working in, I think they were both working in the, the restaurant that he threw airport. And then by stepfather grew up in a village, in a rural, you know, setting in the western side of Hungary. And then his story is different as well. So he was 14 years old. And he and his brother and his classmates heard on the radio that the Russians were coming. That was the Yundekazaurosok in Hungarian. I remember him saying that phrase. And then

they just ran. It's a, you know, not far from the border with Austria. And they ran. And they literally climbed barbed wire fences and whatever. And and he says, I mean, again, he's probably doesn't know for sure. But he says that, you know, many of them were killed in the attempt, you know, getting out. And he ended up with his brother in a refugee camp in Austria. So they all had

“a slightly different pathway. So on immigration, you have Zerdron, I think, of a right distinction”

between illegal and legal immigration. And you've basically said some version of, in many,

many times, that there ought to be more cooperation with ICE because the lack of cooperation of what leads to this sort of the chaos and the targeting of people who are nonviolent offenders. Yeah. And my, yeah. And this general kind of antagonistic toxic brew of hostility. Yeah. Yeah. So the, the problem I have when you say that is it would be nice if that were true, but California may be attacked by Republicans for being a sanctuary state. But the sheriff's in police

still notify ICE about removal, right? Right. Right. And ICE can still enforce removal orders here. And there doesn't seem to be a difference between cooperative and non-cooperative state. So if you're in Florida or Texas, huge number of deportations, same as in other places, we're still hitting about something in the 70s, percent of which are sort of nonviolent offenders or no convictions, right, five percent violent. And that's true, regardless of the level of cooperation, the

cooperation just seems to increase the number of deportations. Right. And you accept that as true,

“does that, would that change how you think about the role of California's governor?”

I think the number, the number one thing I believe is that we just got to lower the temperature. We've got to find ways of handling this better. And I think there are examples in the past of where this was handled better. Clearly, everyone is grappling with a situation where you've had 50 years of terrible broken immigration policy in loads of different ways. And so that's just hard. You're dealing with a difficult problem because you've got a legacy of an undressed problem

that everyone just passed the book for years. And so I think that's not easy. None of it's easy. But I think the rate, the way it's been so, you know, the confrontation and the demonization and all this rhetoric, I think it makes it even harder to deal with the hard problem. So my number one thing is can we just lower the temperature a bit and and sit down and try and figure out how we

handle this. First of all, of course, everyone knows federal immigration policy. You don't affect

that. The question for the government is like, how do you respond here? And that's my goal. It's like, let's find a way to work together, which Gavin already says he is doing. And if you look at California's Sanctuary State Law, SB 54 passed in 2017, there's a whole section in their Lakal, which I've read, a long section, which lists all the different areas where you can have at the discretion of the state, cooperation with federal immigration. And for me, in fact, California's Sanctuary

State Law was criticized by the left for being too accommodating on that front. But see, but this is the thing, it doesn't really just moiled down to cooperation. It's, well, what kind of immigration enforcement would you support as governor, right? Because whether the kind that he does know, I don't like a tool, if this is what you're getting at, just be direct about it. I really don't want to see raids into communities and to workplaces, any of that. That is, I hate to see that.

because you're not in charge of it. But if you can decide whether to coordinate, whether to

state, whether to coordinate in those enforcement actions or you can do what the California has done, it's a, we're not going to break the law, but no, we're not going to participate in these actions. And then that is described as a lack of cooperation, which leads to the deployment of federal agents in a big kind of, yeah, sweep. Yeah, so, so, so I know Tom Homan, well, I'm not in for years. And I, you know, his, his argument, you can challenge it, but I'm just, you know, his argument is

that we wouldn't need to do those kinds of enforcement actions if we had more direct cooperation. And we see, and it's, and it's not true, actually, that the, the cooperation is as Gavin would, would want you to have it because regularly in California, we see stories where that hasn't

happened, where, where, where people who, and we just saw a case in the Bay Area just the other week,

a brutal murder of a, of a, of a elderly gentleman in the community who is just a lot, life and solve the communities, family, bereft, the communities bereft by someone who, everyone watching and listening would agree, should not be in the country in a legal immigrant, could be multiple violent crimes and was led out by a judge and was in the community. That shouldn't have happened. And so, and I hear what they say that, well, actually, this is all bullshit from the Trump administration,

because we do cooperate on the cases where people agree, which is the violent criminals. That isn't the case, because you see stories, regular, there's another one, just, I think this week or last week, where you see examples of that not happening in California. Let's say those cases are wrong, but cooperation outside of those cases, why would the lack of agreement between

“California and a federal government mean you need to do enforcement actions at home depots and”

and work side, because other people that they, that they, they should have been able to, to be, that they wouldn't need to look for because they would have been handed over by California, state and local law enforcement. And so you would, would you, would you sort of deploy state resources as governor to support enforcement operations? Because here's a problem, right? But let's say whether you would, I kind of, I really want to see them. I don't like seeing,

and I would want to not have in California, those kinds of operations correctly, perhaps, absolutely. And so, you know, what would I actually do? I would get on the phone with Tom, who I know, and say, right, how are we going to handle this? Because I don't want to see that, Californians don't want to see that. You know that? It's not, it's obvious that the Californians don't want to see that. You've got a job to do. I've got a job to do. How are we going to do this

“in a common reason? But wait, that's, that's what I would actually do. Right. And then the current”

policy is to pursue a level of deportations that requires going after non-criminalism. Well, like I said, the numbers, you can't do the numbers that they want to hit. But I don't know if that's, they still look at it. I totally accept that there's been a shift, oh, you're just the

numbers, the data is clear, that in the early period of the first, of this Trump administration,

the balance was mainly the kind of, the kinds of people that the vast majority of Californians, Americans would accept, shouldn't be here. And then that shifted, and the balance has gone in favor of those who don't, on in that category. And I, but I sense that it's going back in that direction. You sense it? I, yes, because of the response to what happened in Minnesota, I think they're supposed to what happened in Maine. Well, they, and I think they turned on the

public temperature for sure. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest they change their enforcement priorities. They've certainly done less of the Christy-nom, uh, uh, Bavino, kind of whatever shock and awe. I'm glad that's gone. But they have not replaced that with a less, uh, draconian overall policy. Well, again, my, my, my, my response would be to sit down and say, right, what's, what's the deal here? What are you doing in California with

“the biggest state with highest population, very large immigrant population? What's the plan?”

And, and just tell me what you're trying to do, and I'm the governor, and I'm going to make sure that we don't have these scenes, and we don't have this confrontation. And yeah, we don't have those kinds of raids. I don't want to see that. Potty of America's brought you by policy genius. It's so annoying when you learn that those little things, everyone recommends you do to set yourself up for success, like meal prepping,

resetting your space, or putting out your work to a close before bed, really do make life easier. A quick act of preparation can make all the difference. So before the season gets any busier,

quotes tailored to your families needs with policy genius. Searching for the right life insurance policy can be complicated and confusing. Policy genius makes it simple and straightforward. Policy genius is an online insurance marketplace that allows you to compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side for free. Their license team helps you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life easily find what you need coverage amounts, prices, terms,

no guests work just clarity, prioritize peace of mind, lock in your life insurance today. With policy genius, you can find 20 year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year

for $1 million in coverage, head to policy genius.com/cricket to compare life insurance quotes

from top companies and see how much you could save that's policy genius.com/cricket. So if you're the governor, a lot of what you'd want to do, the tax break for people making under $150 is at the number. It's not a tax break. It's not a tax break. It's no tax. No income tax. And a number of other changes you'd have to work with the legislature.

“Have you thought about how you would do that? How you would approach that?”

Yeah, I mean it's a huge question because I mean there's basically two questions which is how are you going to win? And I do appreciate like you said you appreciate to me being here. I appreciate you having because you know you're probably sitting there thinking why am I talking to this guy? He's got no chance of winning. But I think that there is a shot. I know it's an uphill battle, but I think that there's a level of frustration.

And I think we can do this. But the second big question is,

well what can you get done in the context of a legislature that's pretty likely to continue to have a Democrat super matured? And the first point I'd make is that I'm used to that. Right? People may know me from TV or whatever. And now obviously is a candidate. But while most of my career has actually been in business running small businesses doing startups and whatever, I did spend some time working in the government in the UK. I was senior advisor to the

Prime Minister David Cameron. He's a conservative prime minister, but it was a coalition government. It was two parties. There's a conservative party, the Liberal Democrats. And I helped I was part of the team that negotiated the coalition agreement. I shared an office in 10 downing street with my opposite number from another party from the Liberal Democrats. And so

“actually temperamentally, I think that they'll find when I get there that I'm perhaps not the”

caricature that they've heard about. And I'm easy and constructive to work with. That's the first point.

Attitude and Lee, I'm looking forward to working with them. The French call it co-habitation. You know, it's normal. It's not that unusual in other systems. The second point, in which in Washington, it's not unusual. You've had examples of presidents and legislatures of different parties. So it's just unusual in California. The second point is that in the primary, here in California for governor, there were many examples where

some of the other, not the ones that made, not necessarily baserra, but some of the others. We constantly were agreeing with each other. That's constantly agreeing with Matt Mayhand on housing policy, for example, Katie Porter actually said it. One of the debates we had that she adopted my tax plan. Now, just to be clear, then it was your first 100 grand tax-free. Now, one of the points of feedback we got in the primary was that given how expensive everything

is in California, the fact that in many counties now, the official level for being low income is 100 grand or higher. We raised it to 150 and reduced another, the flat rate tax above that to make the math work. But Katie Porter agreed that we've got the quickest way to get more money in people's pockets, particularly working class people, who just paying 9.3% income tax. That's higher than the top rate in most states is to eliminate them from saving income tax altogether. The Katie

“Porter agreed with that principle and so I think that actually there will be things where we can”

work together. The other point is that you do run the executive branch and doesn't mean you can do everything, but on the regulatory front there's a lot you can do through appointments and giving you direction to some of these agencies that are making everything so expensive and complicated in California. Are there any specific, new, some executive orders on, say, abortion access that you would repeal? No, there'll be no change to any of that. And you support, would you be, there's obviously

the looming threat of the Trump administration trying to crack down an access to abortion, abortion care? Yeah, but it's in the California, no, in California because it's in the state constitution. I mean, that's the class by referendum. Very clear overwhelmingly. Right, but there's all kinds of mechanisms. The federal government can use to try to claim certain Medicaid funding

that you will stand up to the Trump administration to protect the access to abortion in California if they tried to undermine it? Yeah, but I'm not sure. Yeah, in principle, yeah, I mean, I haven't seen the specific things you're talking about. And do you support the right of Californians to make decisions about gender affirming care? At all, yes, I know children. So you don't, if a parent and a doctor and a teenager come to a difficult decision that a better

“transition is in their best interest, you believe the state can stop that. So I think that the”

most important work that's been done on this was actually in the UK and the National Health Service

a model that Democrats, or certainly don't on the left want to see here, universal healthcare, taxpayer funded, Medicare for all. And it was the longest study, the most detailed and in-depth studies, the cast review, two years plus because there was a lot of concern about it in the UK. And Hillary Cash is a very, very respected doctor in the field and just just made that report is very thorough and impressive. And it says very clearly and strongly, and this is now the policy

in the UK with the National Health Service that up till, you know, and up for children, gender dysphoria should be treated through therapy and and so on, but not through irreversible surgical procedures.

That's the policy now in the UK, and I think that's right. So regardless of what the sort of,

that's a policy around access to state funded care, right? Yes, that would be UK, yes, right. And so what I'm saying is in the United States where we have

“a different, different sort of sense of freedom, right, and that's why people oppose universal”

healthcare. They don't want the government making those kinds of decisions. You would say that regardless of who's paying for it, do you believe doctors, parents, have the right to make these decisions, or can the state come in and tell them that I don't allow. We can't, just to take an extreme example, you know, we don't, we don't, we have freedom is not on construction. Of course, free for all. But there's obviously, there's a place to design a dream. Of course, we have many

policies and laws protecting children, including protecting them from things that parents might want to do. Of course. Of course. And I think this is what that category does for me. If you were governor, would you have signed or vetoed SB 79, or housing on transit? Because I actually don't, I can't find you having a clear position on the law. Yes. You would have signed it. I was strongly against it. I would not have signed it, and I campaigned against it. You would have vetoed it.

Yeah. You don't believe in building more in enforcing states that are forcing municipalities that are refusing to approve more housing at a time when we have a massive housing shortage. You would not support forcing them to do. No, so just to be clear what, look, we got to build more. I just did a speech at the Commonwealth Club. So I was just go a couple of weeks ago, called a new decade of building. And we absolutely have to build more, because we have the highest housing cost in the

“country, and the lowest, so much as absolute crisis. But I think right now, the attitude to that,”

and this bill for 79 falls into exactly what we've seen. So the turn to centrum of Berkeley,

the real source of expertise on housing in California. This is what I, it's actually the first

issue that got me involved in this whole era of politics in California. I hadn't tended to run for governor, but I could see that this was such a massive issue. The number one reason people are leaving California, the housing cost. And so I worked on a ballot initiative. This is going about four years or so now. And the components of it were to cap developer, and I don't need to go into the details. The point is, although we should, because that is,

it actually gets into why housing is going to answer your question first. At that time, there were, there had, this is like four years ago, there've been a hundred plus bills passed and enacted in the last, in the previous five years, trying to encourage more housing to be built, and they've barely moved the needle. Things like the ADU bill and so on, just all these things. Well, one of the reasons because of abstinence at the local level of preventing building,

which is why the law was meant to address exactly. And it won't, because what is got fundamentally the wrong approach, which is that we're trying to, because of this argument about density, I completely disagree with the density argument. I think rather than trying, I think we should be expansive and open up building in places where people actually want things to be built.

and councils want to build housing, but they're prevented from doing so because of the density

argument, which says the current development boundary is perfect and we can't go any further. Now, if you look at the actual numbers on that, the proportion of our land area in California that's developed at all is about six percent. In terms of where that puts us nationally, we're about the middle, we're about sort of 20 if something like that. So we are not a, we're already pretty dense in terms of the small, the relatively small proportion of our land mass that's actually

developed. There's so much space that we could use to build the housing, what I've said, I said, I want to see Newt's, Towns and Cities built. I'm a sign is the port of California forever, for example. And that would mean we could build on a much greater scale, much more quickly including the kind of housing that people want, especially when they want to start and raise

“a family, which is single family homes. That's what actually the research shows people want.”

And therefore, this attitude of saying the only acceptable form of housing construction is apartment buildings shoved into suburban neighborhoods. I think that's very limiting. And I think that's not, but that's not what that's why it doesn't. But that's why it doesn't. And it's not. Well, it doesn't.

Ban building anywhere else is just part of first of all, part of the other rules to correct.

But part of the reason there's so much pressure to expand the footprint of where we can build. And I'm not against that is because we have so thoroughly failed to build the housing required in the places where people want to work in there. But like if you, if you are housing, the housing that demand would suggest is more like, you know, but this is my market forces. An instant. But I mean, if you buy a single family home in a suburban neighborhood,

you've made an investment in that particular lifestyle. And to be told that that's just going to be upended. And you're going to have apartment buildings at the end of your street with no provision for extra parking. There's going to make, you know, traffic and nightmare. There's going to completely change the character of the neighborhood. I disagree with that. Well, so that the law right was written to address that. And so in so far as cities can make their own plan to avoid violating the kind of

character. No, it's 79 is very aggressive. It's like within one mile of transit, maybe come to transit there. There's a buy right to build up to seven story apartment building. Uh, if cities and states fail, if cities and municipalities fail to create plans, but I mean, city of Los Angeles has an alternate, Los Angeles currently has an alternate plan, right? Right now, they've voted to do an alternate plan to build up.

“This is against is like John Green, the posing. Of course, does that make you nervous?”

No, you think you're right. You think that's great. I think I think good for her because she understands that the infrastructure, you know, everything, you know, but not just transportation, but, you know, utilities and so on. It's, it's a massive, um, you know, expansion of the numbers of people that need to be supported by the existing infrastructure, which can't easily and quickly be adapted like you can just throw up an apartment building. You can't change the whole, you know,

traffic plan and utilities and and sewage and all that. And so I think that there's a, and there's a massive issue in California, which is the state, the state level, and Sacramento, imposing things on local communities that don't want them. And I disagree with that. Look, one of the main, um, kind of ideas that I've championed throughout my, when business actually, as well as in government and in all the things in the books I've written, is the decentralization

of power. I've always believed in that, and I strongly believe it in that in this case.

So I completely disagree with that whole direction of policy. The arena numbers, that's the regional housing needs assessment, the way that they're, you know, aggressively going after places that don't build enough and there's a simple way I put it is instead of forcing housing into places that don't want it. That's allowing housing to be built in the places that do want it. The, who wants it as it sort of matters, right? The vast majority of people in Los Angeles have

said very clearly they want lots new houses, lots of new housing built. They want more apartment buildings. They want more, they want more housing of all kinds, single family, multi unit apartments. They want all that kind of housing. The problem, right, is that California has a bunch of

“onerous rules, regulations. That's true. That prevent that kind of building, right?”

Well, just prevent any kind of building. I mean, actually, the delays are, so this, so while this is one, I think relatively small part of the story in housing that the bill you talked about, the much bigger point is that we need to make it easier to build affordably. And that does take us back to the ballot initiative that I tried to make happen, which had then had two components. Number one is dealing with, actually, Matt Mayhand, the mayor of San Jose, who ran for

governor, didn't make it into the top two. He and I totally agreed on this, which is impact fees, developer impact fees. It's like a hidden tax on housing. The turn of central, Berkeley estimates that in many cases, up to 20% of the cost of the new home is trade-up

And we need to cap them. That's one part of it. Sorry. The people, you know, they look at this housing thing and say, "Well, it's all about the nimbees and the

nimbees." It's so much more than that. Let me give you a second example, which is in terms of the

“the secret process. Secret was the California environment, environmental quality act passed in 1970,”

also as recline. And there at Thompson wrote about it in abundance. It's a massive obstacle to getting anything done in California. But one of the main reasons that that's the case is not just the act itself and the rules and process contained within it, but the fact that over the years it's a private right of action has been attached to it. So anyone can file a lawsuit using secret as a pretext to block anything. 70% of the lawsuit is a file to block housing. Most of those

are actually filed by unions to negotiate what they call project labor agreements in order to extract benefits like what they call skilled and trained workforce, which means union members only,

prevailing wage, which is two or three times market rate wages. There's a whole kind of system here

that has, you know, over the years has built up that makes housing impossible to build affordably. Yes. Agreed. I don't. And it's an emergency. It's an emergency in this country. Yeah. And yet this bill that would not stop anyone from building single family units or new towns, which should hopefully begin to address the massive shortage that exists inside of places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, right? And where we have not built enough housing to keep up with the

population. You're opposing it. And I don't want to false housing into places that don't want to keep up with you. But we do want it, right? It's a small subset. Wait. It's a small subset of people that take advantage of these processes, which you're criticizing to prevent action, right? You

will have, right now there's a housing development that's meant to be built in Woodland Hills

California on a golf course that's going to be housing, right? That's infill housing technically. And they are suing to stop it with a help of a city council member, because they're claiming it might be a habitat for mountain lions. That's bullshit, right? Now the state's quite active coming. And the state may have to come into force them to do this. I think that's right because I think they are not serving the city or the state of California. Now that's top down

for sure. And it regrettably so. But but to address an emergency, don't we need to have the state come in and say hey, take in local concerns, but we need to build to prevent California from losing more people. Yeah, I agree it's an emergency, but there's so many. But I also don't think that we should completely ignore the people who live here already. And and violate their property rights, and also the kind of lifestyle that they've invested in. And I think that we don't need to.

I think this is where I think that's wrong. I think it's a antagonistic attitude,

“which is that the only way we get housing is by sticking it to the Olympics. I'm not trying”

to say anything. Don't agree with it. I don't think it's necessary because there's so much space we could be building in California. But you look at happens in a neighborhood where they preserve the character of the neighborhood. And then the housing prices go up year after year after year. And slowly but surely the middle class and working class families that used to live there are priced out and and wealthier people come in. And the the all things don't change but the character does.

Yeah, but that also happens when you when you do the apartment approach where you've got gentrification through these luxury apartments that get built in working class neighborhoods and that whole gent hipster gentrification process. You see it all over the world, by the way, not just California. That's another version of it. And that is that's a version of it that the people who are going to pro forcing housing in today but who's agree with. And I just think that I think the

whole conversation has just become very ideological and I think that rather than practical. And I just think there's a much simpler solution which is to free up more of our land for building including in in the form which is what we used to do in California when we were like the bill bill billed and the suburbs of southern California, the UC campuses, the state water project

“with the amazing things we used to build. We can do that again. And that's why I've said a lot”

that I'm excited about the potential if we can just get people to buy into it, of new towns, new cities, new university campuses. You know, we've got to be much more expansive in our attitude right now. It feels very narrow and pinched and kind of antagonistic and I don't think it's necessary to do it like that. And by the way, fine. But you understand the building those new developments also puts strain on highways and resources. It's great to say we can't

that I really understand this thing what we should be going for. But in the same way that we have to improve our infrastructure in science. Yes, but it's much easier in a green field site. It's easier quick. Look, we can just like do a tech. I mean, that's what they're doing in Texas.

people ever we detect this, which I would agree with you on. But a lot of times when you build

these single build a community and highways and roads, the tax base, ultimately cannot support

the long-term maintenance of these kind of less dense areas. That's just a fact of what happens in some of these sort of sprawling. It's been a lot of time in parts of San Diego, County, Orange, County, you know, in the inland empire where it that's kind of development has worked fine. I'm just there are trade-offs that go along with us. That's all. All right. You said voters shouldn't decide the election based on who they hate in Washington. Okay. One role of the governor is

filling Senate vacancies. Oh, my goodness. So Adam Schiff is Frog March to Guantanamo. Yes. There's an unexpected vacancy in the Senate. Would you pledge to nominate a Democrat given that the two seats currently held were voted for you would. Yeah. I pledged to nominate a Democrat. Yeah, that's a big increase. I mean, I just think you've got it on the vote that people took. You said your friends with half of Trump's cabinet, which half? Well, it's okay. It's a form of speech. How

many in the cabinet? I don't know. Maybe hard. I don't know. So I can tell you something wrong. So Brick Rollins, the act secretary, PX, I know obviously from, you know, we were colleagues at Fox Bobby Kennedy, Doug Bergum, TLCs no longer. Was she in the cabinet? I don't know if that can be.

“Yeah, and I technically can't do it. I don't know. Anyway, she's not there anymore. Who else?”

I don't know. I'm hearing from a producer. There's 16 members in the cabinet. Okay. So maybe half is just slightly. The point I'm making is that, oh, Sean Duffy, transportation big role for us. I guess that's a Fox News thing. A lot of friends. A couple of them. We're actually Fox News. And then, and then I'm just trying to think probably the people I mean, Bobbie Kennedy, I've gotten to know since the, since I left Fox, but some of them, I probably

would have met there and interviewing them and that kind of thing. You are, you're told to you go. But actually, I tell you when I met TLC, was when I ran my, my startup crowd pack, which was a platform for trying to get big money out of politics. Good job, by the way. I'm getting exactly. Well, you know, you got to try these things. And we met it was at a conference in New Orleans, a kind of, come over as court. It was great. Jennifer Lawrence was the keynote

speaker. It was a very, and I met TLC and who else was, oh, Mike Gallagher, they had a Democrat and a Republican talking about the problem of money in politics. Yeah. So we go back quite a long have you talked to RFK about vaccines? Not about vaccines, no. You would support

“encourage Californians to get vaccinated. Yeah, I think, I mean, Jay Bata-Chara is a very good”

friend of mine. And I, and I trust what he says about this. And that's, that's basically my position. I try, whatever, you know, I have a lot of confidence in his approach. I mean, I really, you know, work, for example, on the COVID vaccine, you know, I was very struck by what he said about that, which seems to be very common sense position. And so yeah, because I want that. Favorite sandwiches in California? Oh, well, um, the thing that comes to mind, because I just had

some really good ones lately of the bar meat, the Vietnamese, I was in Little Psycho on in San Jose and it was just unbelievably good. For this play, I did an amazing event there. It was fun, very crazy event. It was great. And then we had lunch afterwards. And I do love them. I love,

I love, I love, I mean, I've always loved them, but that was particularly good. And that's the

one that comes to mind. So you talked about how you want to sort of change people's

“caricature of you. And I, well, I don't know, I want to change. I'm just saying, I think,”

I've been like, we're fine. Yeah, I'm not that. Yeah. I had to say, yeah, it was interesting watching the way you've been campaigning versus the way you were as a host. And I'm wondering if your caricature of Democrats has changed based on what it's been like in California, campaigning sort of outside of us. Yeah, interesting, cable news environment. So the thing I was, I mean, it's not the whole answer, but what I think of when you say that is that, and I said, it's all the

time, because I got a lot of people say, well, what's this fox, fox news thing? You know, we remember you as something completely different when you're in the UK, you were the one that tried to you know, make the conservative party, you know, I mean, I'd ever use this term actually, but it's going to modernize it and so on. And, you know, I wrote a book in 2015 called More Human Designing A World where people come first. Actually, the big theme of that is decentralizing

power and so on. And I would always say, look, I, I, what I've never said anything on my Fox news show

that's how I saw that. It's a particular job. And I think that, you know, to be fair,

I would be pretty, I don't, I want to say it's not true to that even handed, but I would attack Republicans on that show. I had a segment on that show called Swamp Watch, which was, which was really, you know, going after corruption and so on. I got a huge amount of blowback when I would go after Republicans, which I did regularly, and prominent one, you know, Ted Cruz or Kevin MacArthur,

“whatever. And so I think that, I don't know, I took out anyone else, but I definitely made an effort”

to not be tribal. Well, because what do you mean about Democrats? Well, well, I, you I think there is a, there are something about Fox news, which I think exists in many ways to a swage uncomfortable thoughts out of people's minds. That's, that's, I think, part of its function. And, and that is especially important when it comes to sincere objections to Donald Trump, which is where we started and we can end here. You know, when you were talking about the Trump's

first impeachment, you said of Democrats, they hate the president, they hate a supporters,

they hate how they think, they hate their faith, they even hate their food, they hate the fact that this president is delivering concrete results, and they're terrified that they can't beat him. Now, I'm in Democrat. I think my view on his first impeachment is sincerely held, and that it was deserved. That even right now, it should be impeached and removed for a set of, for, for high crimes and misdemeanors, corruption, abuse of office. That is a sincerely

held view. I certainly don't hate people's food and religion. In fact, I was just the Minnesota

“State Fair, and I, I, I, I, like a Republican. So, but I do think it matters because I think”

what that is is trying to tell people that supporting Donald Trump doesn't say anything bad about you, that these people don't really believe these moral criticize. And then you embrace someone immoral, and you're asking us to say, "Oh, don't let that bother you." But it's something fundamentally broken about a politics that can embrace someone as unfit as Donald Trump. And so, do you appreciate that a lot of Democrats in this state genuinely believe he's a threat to this

country and you would be representing them? Yeah, I, I, I can, I know because we talk about it. I, I, I, I, I, I, very clearly, and I disagree with that. Like I said, there's many examples starting with trendy, but, you know, like, all the time, I'm seeing things that I think about it very narrowly now in terms of California, the way I think I don't agree with that. I really hate that. I wouldn't, I wouldn't, you know, I'd argue strongly against that if I were there now,

everything from UC funding to, I don't know, the, the business with Yosemite, I'm going to

“haven't looked into it, but seems pretty bad to me. So, I think that on a case by case basis,”

I'm very happy to say that I wouldn't be at all, um, you know, reluctant to chat to disagree and challenge them. I, here, what you're saying on that, um, I think what I was channeling there is a very strong sense that there, there, there really was, and it was captured by Hillary's deplorable comment. I mean, that was a real, um, clarifying moment, I think, for a lot of people, and I don't want to suggest that it was representative of every Democrat. I, of course, I don't. But, you know,

there was something to that that was visceral, and I, and I feel like that is what a lot of Republicans feel, they feel look down on, and they really do, and, and they feel look down on partly because of who they are, and all those things I listed the faith and the food and whatever, and you see it in, in some of the, the commentary that people make, and I don't know, you'll say what, which, which, which examples. I mean, just I'm just 10 years now, you know, like, well, no,

I, but I would say, you know, sure, she said deplorables, dumb thing to say, apologize for it. Yeah, I'm not know how to decade, a decade, a decade. I'm not saying some of the most heinous, vicious things, not just about politicians, but about California, about our people, about about about a place we love that you're trying to run, and I appreciate you trying to strike this balance. Okay, but I don't, but it's not, doesn't seem to be as much what you did on, I get why you'd be

doing it while running to lead California, but yeah, but for a lot of us, it's not a balancing question. It's a moral question. I understand that, but I guess, I've been, I've done a lot of different things in my career. I left Oxford in, in 1990, '36 years, I actually, you know, added it up,

because when you run for, I'd never run for office before you get three words to describe yourself

on the balance. So, I think, okay, what have done different things, I've taught at Stanford,

a bunch of different things. So, I, I actually added it up, most of my career has been in business,

“in the private sector, and most of those years, starting and running my own businesses. However,”

in to first, in that 36-year period, I've been in and around politics in the media a lot,

and I guess what, including by, you know, my first job, my first real job was project manager for a construction company, but my first job I had a college was, if I took a gap here and did that, but was working at the conservative part. I've been around a long time in and around politics,

and I guess I just, I've seen a lot of things that you could say are reprehensible.

“I don't think that anything I've seen is uniquely bad, and I think, you know, things just,”

you know, things seem from, in the moment to have particular kind of, you know, significant attached to them, and I think increasingly with everything's out, top and away it wasn't before, because of social media, but then things move on, and you're

on to the next thing. I remember, like, for example, back in the day, in the Europe, the first,

the George W. Bush was unbelievably unpopular in Europe. He's everyone now thinks, "Oh, Trump, and it's so embarrassing because everyone in Europe thinks we're so, you know, you go there, and everyone's talking about Trump, and how could you elect Trump?" Well, that was exactly the same with George W. Bush, and so I just think that I tend to not get, I don't know, I just try and focus on the stuff that you can control, and things that are practical,

“honestly, that's truly how I see it, so I don't know, I mean, I don't, I try not to get”

up top of that stuff. Well, that's all I do. See you again. Good talking, thank you for commenting. Thank you very much for being here. Good luck on the campaign trail. Thank you. Have us enough data on how things are feeling on the ground there, with just two months until election day. Have a good weekend. Bye everyone. Pots in America is a cricket media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Ofarif, with

re-chirlin, Elijah Cone, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Heskow, Jordan canter, Charlotte Landis, David Toll's, Mia Kelman, Brian Young, and Naomi Sengel. Our staff is probably uninized with the writers' guild of America East.