You can listen to the Ro Khanna on Crime, Censorship & Congress: Fixing What’s Broken in America using Speak’s shareable media player:
Ro Khanna on Crime, Censorship & Congress: Fixing What’s Broken in America Podcast Episode Description
(0:00) Chamath and Jason welcome Rep. Ro Khanna!
(1:10) H-1Bs and immigration
(8:40) Giving Trump credit as a Progressive Democrat, why bipartisanship is broken, future Democratic leaders
(15:08) Tech industry: Can Democrats win back tech?; Economic patriotism, protection vs proliferation of AI
(24:25) Government shutdown, what actually happens?
(30:25) Extreme rhetoric: Importance of dialing this down
(36:29) Censorship and lawfare on both sides
(40:32) Crime issues in major cities, why Democrats are losing on safety, common sense solutions
(47:46) Mamdani’s surge: is Zohran the future of the party?
(51:15) Congressional stock trading ban
Follow Ro Khanna:
https://x.com/rokhanna
Follow the besties:
https://x.com/chamath
https://x.com/Jason
https://x.com/DavidSacks
https://x.com/friedberg
Follow on X:
https://x.com/theallinpod
Follow on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod
Follow on TikTok:
@theallinpod
Follow on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod
Intro Music Credit:
https://rb.gy/tppkzl
https://x.com/yung_spielburg
Intro Video Credit:
https://x.com/TheZachEffect
This interactive media player was created automatically by Speak. Want to generate intelligent media players yourself? Sign up for Speak!
Ro Khanna on Crime, Censorship & Congress: Fixing What’s Broken in America Podcast Episode Top Keywords
Ro Khanna on Crime, Censorship & Congress: Fixing What’s Broken in America Podcast Episode Summary
Based on the provided context, the phrase “has joined the group” refers to someone becoming a member of a group, band, club, or team. Throughout the conversation, there are multiple references to joining various groups, inviting members, and welcoming new people. Specific examples include:
Continue reading the full guide (click to expand)
– “we joined the band”
– “He should’ve joined the…”
– “Join the team.”
– “Welcome to the club.”
– “add one more bestie.”
– “they’re in, they’re in.”
– “invite you to…”
These statements all indicate the act of someone joining or being added to a group or collective. However, the context does not specify exactly who “has joined the group” in a particular instance. The general meaning is clear: it signifies the addition of a new member to a group. If you are looking for a specific individual who joined a specific group, that information is not explicitly provided in the context.
This summary was created automatically by Speak. Want to transcribe, analyze and summarize yourself? Sign up for Speak!
Ro Khanna on Crime, Censorship & Congress: Fixing What’s Broken in America Podcast Episode Transcript (Unedited)
Speaker: 0
00:00
Bro, how many times have you been on the pod now? Is this number four for you? Three or four?
Speaker: 1
00:03
Want to run this on your own file?
Upload audio, video, or text and get a transcript, summary, and insights in minutes.
Free trial includes 30 minutes (60 with a work email)
No. This is my, fifth time. Oh, wait. Sorry. I’m not Rokona. Sorry. Over to Rokona. Sorry. We all look the same.
Speaker: 0
00:11
You’re Sri Lankan. He’s Indian. I know the difference.
Speaker: 1
00:13
We all look the same, bro. We all look the same.
Speaker: 0
00:15
It’s ai like you’re saying to the Irish
Speaker: 2
00:17
guys. That’s how Sai that’s how I won my seat. I just had Indian Americans, every Indian American meh knock on doors and say, I’m Ro Khanna. You know, they all thought I they thought the candidate came to every door.
Speaker: 1
00:28
I’m doing all of you.
Speaker: 0
00:29
Alright, besties. I think that was another epic discussion. People love the interviews. I could hear and talk for hours. Absolutely. We crushed your questions
Speaker: 1
00:38
in May. We are giving people ground truth data to underwrite your own opinion.
Speaker: 0
00:42
What’d you say? That was fun. I’m doing all of it.
Speaker: 2
00:45
I will sai one of my appearance. I think this is number four, but one of them was on election night. That’s right. And it was, with, Trump, Trump’s son, Donald Trump junior. That’s right. And I actually ran into him in the green room right before we were doing Squawk Box, and he brought up the, Pod Save, interview. So there you go.
Speaker: 2
01:06
Bringing bringing the sides together.
Speaker: 0
01:08
It’s been pretty amazing, and it’s a good place to start, how successful, Indian Americans have become. And a really important topic, I think, for us to kick off with maybe this time on your fourth appearance is, immigration, h one b’s. What’s your take broadly on what we’re seeing out of the Trump administration on maybe trying to correct the abuse in these systems, and maybe, monetize them?
Speaker: 0
01:36
And and maybe do you think that’s a good strategy for correcting the abuse?
Speaker: 2
01:40
First of all, there’s definitely abuse. Second, it definitely needs to be corrected. The, reality is that the some of the h one b visa holders are, being paid below market wages. Some of them are not going to super talented individuals or in the, jobs that actually require a lot of skill.
Speaker: 2
02:01
And I had a bill, a bipartisan bill actually, that, would have reformed it ai paying a prevailing wage, requiring, and making sure that the categories actually were skilled categories. I don’t love the blanket 100,000 fee. I think that that’s not the best way to reform it. But if partly because it puts an unfair burden on startups, it actually may, hurt with with talent.
Speaker: 2
02:26
But if you wanted to say, look, there’s gonna be some prevailing wage standard and we need reforms, I’m open open to that.
Speaker: 1
02:32
Do you think that the president is on the right direction then in actually trying to reform the system?
Speaker: 2
02:38
Yeah. I I I don’t I I think in terms of reforming the system, he’s in the right direction. I don’t, you know, I don’t agree with the specifics of require the way he’s doing it. Like many things, I think sometimes he identifies the right issue and he has a solution that I, I don’t agree with.
Speaker: 2
02:54
But the the the reality is that it has to be reformed. I mean, I and anyone in Silicon Meh, I mean, you guys know this. I mean, it’s it’s been abused. It’s been abused by, some of the mass, IT outsourcing firms that just, just have people come here.
Speaker: 1
03:09
It’s been very difficult to find some of the the best young minds to work at our arya ups to your point, Roe, because it has been gained. And the people that have perfected the application process have won the h one b’s. And I think that that’s where these systems go off the rails because it should be, as you said, the really talented young men and women that moved to The United States supported by an American company trying to do something ambitious, it should not be because you know how to apply multiple times through multiple shell companies.
Speaker: 2
03:42
Yeah. I agree. And as you know, some of the outsourcing consulting companies, I don’t wanna go through all the names, but you know what they arya, Ai Consulting or Cognizant or others. They’ve gained the system, and they get a a bulk of those, h one b’s. And that needs to stop, and there needs to be, actual talent.
Speaker: 2
03:59
But I wanna make a point. I was just in China. We had gone to a a ai bipartisan delegation there. One third of the AI talent is in China according to a lot of, the reports. And so I want some of those folks to come to The United States so we can stay ahead of of AI.
Speaker: 2
04:17
So there are legitimate uses of the h one b ram, and what we need to do is fix, fix the program so you can have the legitimate talent still coming to Silicon Valley and around the nation.
Speaker: 1
04:29
Do you think that for that cream skimming, things like national interest waivers and o one visas and e b ones and e b fives, do you think that those are sufficient to accomplish the task of that, or it should be factored into the h one b program itself?
Speaker: 2
04:46
I think there needs to be an h one b program. I don’t I don’t think the national waiver and the the other programs are, are enough a lot of times. You know, look, how Sundar Pichai came or Satya came who are now leading Google and Microsoft. They came, they they studied here, and then they got, an h one b.
Speaker: 2
05:04
But I would also make it that you don’t stay on an h one b indefinitely, that we move towards a green card, which by the way, president Trump said on your shah, in your Yeah. One of your episodes. He said, I’m gonna make sure that, we actually move folks quickly, to a green card.
Speaker: 2
05:19
That to me seems like a, a win win, because you’re then not exploiting an individual. You’re gonna pay them the market wage, as they have flexibility of moving. And, at the same time, they they’re gonna stay in The United States instead of going back to to China or or to to India.
Speaker: 2
05:37
By the way, way, a lot of these companies that if you just limit h one b’s, they all have overseas, a lot of the big companies have overseas headquarters. So they’re gonna just offshore the jobs instead of bringing the jobs here.
Speaker: 1
05:50
Bro, one of the one of the points that Jason has made really well actually, consistently for years is in order to fix the immigration system, I think the first thing you have to do is rebuild trust in the immigration system. Fair point. And one of the things that the president has done effectively now completely sealed the border.
Speaker: 1
06:08
And I think the stat that he said is that since January, literally, there have been no illegal immigrants at the southern border. I’m I’m presuming it’s probably similar at the northern border as well. Can you just talk about that part of the immigration spectrum and what you think the positives and the negatives of what has happened over the last nine months?
Speaker: 2
06:27
We need a secure border. The border, let we let in too many people under, the, Biden administration without, having, the proper, security. Ai think the Democrats need to acknowledge that, own up to that, and say that we need to make sure that there are, there is a secure border.
Speaker: 2
06:48
Now I don’t agree with Trump in the way he’s shut down, basically all asylum claims, and and he’s just taken it to to to zero. And I don’t agree with that approach. But do I think we needed, to do things to secure the border more? I do. Now the question is, okay.
Speaker: 2
07:05
He’s done that. I disagree with, how he’s secured it and in that he’s basically made a a solemn, impossible. But will he take some of that goodwill that he’s earned in terms of the trust and do two things that I think can be bipartisan in terms of immigration reform. One is in industries, like agriculture, food production, construction for people who are here, who are paying their taxes, who’ve been undocumented for a long ai, give them a path to legalization.
Speaker: 2
07:34
By the way, if you wanna see food prices come down, that would be one way to do that in terms of, giving those folks, a path to legalization. If they’re here, non no criminal record, and paid, paid their taxes. And I’ve seen him sometimes suggest that.
Speaker: 0
07:49
Yeah. He came out and said it. He said we have to look at it. Right? He explicitly said it.
Speaker: 2
07:52
I’m a Democrat willing to work with him on that. And the second would be on this green card thing, which he sai explicitly, which is, look. People are here. They’ve they’ve they’ve gotten a college degree. We’re paying for their education. We want them here. I someone comes 600,000 students come from, 300,000 from China.
Speaker: 2
08:10
I’m glad, by the way, the president pushed back against his own base and said that those students should still come because he got a hard time, saying that they should still come. Well, they come here. They study at Stanford. They study at Berkeley. They study at MIT or at Harvard or at, at at a state college.
Speaker: 2
08:24
We’re basically financing in some way their education because all these universities get federal subsidies. Wouldn’t you want them to stay here and create the jobs you’re an investor instead of going back to China and doing it in Shanghai or Beijing?
Speaker: 0
08:38
Yeah. I think this is part of the one of the reasons I love having you on the program, Roe, is you take a very first principled and a logical, non partisan approach to this. You just gave Trump his flowers for, hey. Good job closing the border. Good job identifying that 80% of Americans agree with that.
Speaker: 0
08:53
I’m curious what’s going on inside the Democratic Party where a large number of people can’t seem to give Trump any credit, right, for this basic win and then challenge them and say, Hey, but this is where we have to go. So how does the Democratic Party look at you, your contemporaries, when you’re ram moderate, when you try to tone things down, when you try to take a first principled, logical approach to these issues?
Speaker: 0
09:19
How are you looking at within your own party?
Speaker: 1
09:21
Are you the skunk at the Arya party just for saying that Trump actually did something right? Well,
Speaker: 2
09:25
yeah. And I’m a progressive Democrat, but what I am is a progressive Democrat who tries to call balls and strikes. And like I said, I don’t agree with, all of the policies he’s done to to to to, shut down the bryden, but it would be just foolish to think that we didn’t have a problem on the border, that that we weren’t, didn’t have too many people coming in, that we didn’t do enough to to, strengthen the border.
Speaker: 2
09:48
I think that should have been vice president Harris’s answer of what she would have done differently. And she could have even sai, I learned. We we we we made a mistake. We didn’t we we didn’t have the the the right, approach on on border security. Look.
Speaker: 2
10:02
Today, I tweeted out something about how I agreed with what Trump’s doing on, the prescription drug, issue That, he has a, a a government website that is basically going to sell pharmaceutical drugs at a cheaper price. Now that’s a policy that if Bernie Sanders had put forward or Joe Biden put forward
Speaker: 1
10:24
It’s exactly what I was gonna say. Bernie Sanders had put this out.
Speaker: 2
10:27
Sorry. Go ahead. That we’d all be cheering. I mean, it’s not That’s right. Is it as far as I want? No. But it’s a step in that direction. So I guess my point is, well, why not just then say, okay. That’s that’s good. Or I’ve been very critical of, president’s policies on the Middle East, and I was I’ve been critical of the policies of Biden on the Middle East.
Speaker: 2
10:46
But today, he put forward the plan that the Arab countries are are are saying that, Hamas should take. So I tweeted out that Hamas should accept this, release the hostages, Israel should withdraw. Now that’s because I’m rooting for America to succeed in peace in the Middle East.
Speaker: 2
11:00
That doesn’t mean that I adopt Donald Trump’s policy. But I just think we need as a party to, to to be honest about where, someone is is is putting forward something that we may agree with and where they’re not. Now, of course, he’s doing a lot of things that we could get into it that are unconstitutional, and that’s and he puts does, antics ai having, Hakeem Jeffries in a, in a sombrero, and and it it you can see why there is such anger.
Speaker: 2
11:29
He’s the the been renting cars threatening, to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air. I mean, threatening universities with, with their speech. Sai so there’s reason for for the the anger, but I don’t think just being anti Trump is the way back for the Democratic Party.
Speaker: 0
11:46
By the
Speaker: 2
11:46
way yeah. Go ahead. Can you
Speaker: 1
11:48
just just ai this for us? Because I think we’ve entered a phase of politics where just it seems like decorum has been lost. And underneath that, is it that there’s hatred, or is it that there’s just incredible competition now to accumulate power and win elections? What do you believe is at the root cause of why people can’t call balls and strikes?
Speaker: 2
12:10
I think it’s both. It’s that, unfortunately, there has been more extremism and hate, in in our country. I mean, people really, have lost the ability to try to see, the good in others and then to to say, look. We’ve got some humility. We may not have all the right answers, and we wanna engage. I think it I used to say money in politics is our biggest problem.
Speaker: 2
12:32
Now I believe hate and extremism is our biggest problem in in this country. And then you’re rewarded, if you do the most outlandish things because we’re in an attention economy. And if you pick a fight, people pay attention. And so, if you’re kinda sober, you’re you’re gonna lose, support from your your own party, your own base.
Speaker: 2
12:53
But my my hope, and I I hope this for both parties, that after the Trump era and, I think even Trump supporters would acknowledge he’s divisive. I mean, look at what he said at Charlie Kirk’s, funeral where Erica, Kirk gives this beautiful statement of, forgiveness. And he says, well, I can’t forgive.
Speaker: 2
13:12
I I hate my enemies. But after eight years of that, I really hope that we don’t devolve into both sides just hating each other more, mimicking Trump’s style of communication. I hope, whoever the Republicans put forward, will say, look. We wanna go forward. We want it’s a new generation.
Speaker: 2
13:29
We’ve had three 80 year old presidents in a row in this country. Like, we have a new generation of governors, and we’re gonna be aspirational, and we’re gonna talk about positive things. And I hope the democrats will do that.
Speaker: 1
13:39
Who do you think those are on the democratic side?
Speaker: 2
13:42
I think they’re folks they’re folks like, Andy Beshear. There’s folks like Wes Moore. You know, whatever you think of the three people who are gonna win in November, Abigail Spanberger, and Mikey Sherrill, you know, one thing all three of those campaigns have in common, they don’t spend a lot of time talking about Donald Trump.
Speaker: 2
13:59
They’re talking about their own vision, their own ideas about what they wanna do, for their city, their state, for the country, and the world. And that’s what politics should be about. The politics should be about, here’s what my vision is. Here’s my plan. Here’s where I wanna take the nation.
Speaker: 2
14:14
By the way, Roe, you know, I don’t agree with Roe on Medicare for all. I don’t agree with him on where he thinks the tax rate should be. I don’t agree with him on having the state play some role in building modern factories in in Ohio and this thing he calls economic patriotism. I’m more libertarian.
Speaker: 2
14:30
I’m for deregulation. He doesn’t understand how you really grow the economy. That’s that’s what we should be talking about. Instead, it’s just, you know, everyone’s trying to see how they can curse in terms of being authentic as if that makes you intelligent. Right?
Speaker: 2
14:43
Sai mean, it’s it’s actually just the expression of emotion without a thought. And I, I I I’m hoping that we’ll have a more serious politics.
Speaker: 0
14:51
You had a you had a really great moment on, a podcast I heard you on. I can’t remember which one. But you were saying, I wonder if comedy is the precursor now. Being funny, being witty on programs is ai the precursor to to running for president. But let’s let’s talk about, I think maybe an interesting place to to go would be how the technology industry how to win that back on the Democratic side.
Speaker: 0
15:16
You had essentially the entire industry. Yeah. Monopoly. So let’s call it what it is. Nine out of ten, ninety five out of a 100 We meh we
Speaker: 2
15:26
even had Chamath.
Speaker: 0
15:28
You had Chamath. You you had Mark Pincus. I mean, listen. Even inside the cabinet, Bessen, Lutnick, Trump himself. Was Bessen?
Speaker: 2
15:35
I didn’t remember. They were
Speaker: 0
15:36
all Democrats. Yeah. All previous Democrats, including Trump himself. So is there a road back? And then if we were just to do a little, you know, post mortem on how the tech industry was kind of abandoned, vilified. I know for me as a moderate, basically, up until this ai, have been, like, two out of three times Sai voted Democrat. Now it’s, like, sixty forty ish.
Speaker: 0
15:59
The banning of the billionaires, the demonization of entrepreneurs, it must have been uncomfortable for you to watch. And, obviously, you see the entire, digerati at the White House having dinner. You must be thinking to yourself, my god. Biden could have done that at any time.
Speaker: 0
16:14
He could have summoned everybody and said, hey. Come. Let’s talk about your issues. But instead, the industry was ai. So if you I don’t wanna spend too much time on it, but what’s what’s your diagnosis and how that happened, and then how does the Democratic Party win back technology and leaders and billionaires?
Speaker: 2
16:30
I do joke that I think the tech industry has become the new, new new aristocracy. I look at, I look at the White House. There they arya. Sundar, Tim Cook, and Satya, and all the group. And then then the king of England, King Charles, there they are or something. So it’s a it’s a it’s a it’s a, a group that obviously has, a lot of stature and respect.
Speaker: 2
16:49
And I guess here was my point to the Biden administration that, they didn’t agree with or they ignored. I sai, you’re you’re making a mistake if you think that getting Silicon Valley folks, on your side is about, the money. Because they would always say, oh, Biden’s gonna raise all this money. We don’t need need the Valley’s money. I said, yeah.
Speaker: 2
17:09
You’re gonna raise all the money, and they did. They raised tons of money. Kamala Harris raised tons of money. I said, that’s not what it’s about. It’s about culture.
Speaker: 2
17:16
I said, you you there are a lot of young people in America who admire these entrepreneurs, who listen to all in, who wanna build wealth, who wanna build the next generation of wealth. By the way, all crypto is, why ai are there so many young black and Latino, folks who care about crypto?
Speaker: 2
17:33
Because, frankly, it’s the closest they often they’re gonna get to a friends and family round in technology that we’ve gotta expand economic opportunities so they have more options. But there are a lot of people who wanna have a part of the digital economy, who want to who look up to entrepreneurs and innovators.
Speaker: 2
17:50
And you basically let Trump, this nineteen eighties real estate guy who was kinda passe, who was wondering whether we were gonna get more reruns of The Apprentice and another act on on politics. And you let him be the cool guy hanging out with all these tech folks saying, no. I’m the future.
Speaker: 2
18:05
And, I sai, that’s the the the worst mistake our party has made because we’ve gotta be the party of the future. We’ve gotta be the party of entrepreneurship and innovation. And you can be ai me, a guy who says we should tax them.
Speaker: 1
18:19
Well, I don’t I’ll just tell you I’ll just tell you one quick story. I think I think it’s not that. Okay. I think it’s something I think it’s something more basic. When when we were at that dinner Yeah. He asked everybody, what is the biggest issue that you’re dealing with?
Speaker: 1
18:33
And he goes around the table and he asks, what is a very basic and open ended question? And I I can say this because I think it was pretty clear what happened afterwards, but one of the things that was mentioned was just the overwhelming pressure that the Europeans were putting on Google.
Speaker: 1
18:49
I don’t know if you remember this. And the day after, beyond making some calls, what he did was he put a pretty meaningful pressure campaign that allowed the release valve to get released so that Google had less pressure from the European regulators and less onerous terms. I think that that’s what it is. Because when you sit with him, he’s not selling an agenda.
Speaker: 1
19:14
He mostly just asks you what’s going on, and then he sai, what can I do? And I think that that is a unique feature that many politicians Ai think have lost. And Listening. And and and you said an important thing, which I just wanna double click on ai I would love your perspective on this.
Speaker: 1
19:32
I do believe that president Trump views the lens through economic patriotism. I’ve been largely convinced that I think that that is a very powerful way of behaving in the world. You know, Alex Carpenter, All In Summit, referred to it in the spirit of Chinese Tai Chi, it’s internal stability.
Speaker: 1
19:51
It’s how do you make sure that you have the resources so that you have effectively infinite optionality abroad. That makes sense to me. So I’m just curious, what is the opposite of the economic patriotism that Trump offers that you’ve seen expressed in other countries? Right?
Speaker: 1
20:11
The Chinese, I think, is very fair to sai, had their own view of economic patriotism. And why is the opposite of that a better model?
Speaker: 2
20:20
Well, economic patriotism is ai platform. That’s why Ben and, says, you know, watch out for this kinda guy. I’ve been talking about it, writing about economic patriotism for years. I would say how let me talk about why it’s different, from from where Trump is, and and it gets to partly your point. I I I think ai.
Speaker: 2
20:39
He listens, but he’s not listening, enough, to people saying, well, the tariff policy is not gonna get get us to, economic development. He’s not listening enough, in my view, to people who are saying that you can’t just take a sledgehammer to universities and research, that that’s not going to help build the economy of this country.
Speaker: 2
20:59
He’s not listening enough, to people who are saying don’t don’t just have all this vetting and, for international students, and and don’t don’t insult immigrants coming to The United States. So we do need immigrants. Now I I agree that he gave some of those answers and and and all in, but overall, there hasn’t been the same understanding and case for the role of immigrants in the community.
Speaker: 2
21:20
What I believe is we need a Marshall Plan for America, and I wish that we had a White House economic council. I did this bill with Marco Rubio that actually looks at Johnstown, that looks at Warren, Ohio, that looks at Milwaukee. And it sai, not only advanced manufacturing, we we should put tech, jobs there, AI academies, there, health care, and let’s have an economic renaissance in this country and bring the country together.
Speaker: 2
21:43
And that to me, we should be arguing in the parties of how we do that. And I have a different view on some of the policies I articulated, but that that should be the goal. If
Speaker: 1
21:53
you look
Speaker: 0
21:54
at, Brooke,
Speaker: 1
21:54
if you look if you look at promoting that economic exceptionalism, there are a bunch of categories where I think the policy has diverged pretty meaningfully and paradoxically. The most obvious example is around Ai, where we’ve gone from a much more regimented stage gated way of seeing the world.
Speaker: 1
22:14
And under president Trump and our bestie, David Sachs, we’ve gone into a much more open mandate that acknowledges we’re in a very tough competition with an extremely talented Chinese competitor. What’s your view on some of these groundbreaking areas of tech? How do we think about protection versus how do we think about proliferation?
Speaker: 2
22:38
Well, that’s a big question. And, first, we start by saying, I I believe AI is gonna do more good than bad in the world. And, I mean, I know that’s a simple statement, but there are many people who may not agree with that. The the the advances it can make in, human disease and diagnosis of human disease, the advances it can make in, education curriculum for young people, the advances they can make in production.
Speaker: 2
23:04
You know, one of the places we, went to in in, Beijing was Xiaomi, the the the factory that makes, these phones. And I was stunned.
Speaker: 1
23:15
I mean Xiaomi. Yeah.
Speaker: 2
23:16
Xiaomi is a yeah. I mean, I was stunned. It’s a ai, the AI has these machines that are basically putting together the the the the phone. I mean, it’s a model of the iPhone.
Speaker: 1
23:26
To your point, we had Joe Tsai, who is the chairman of Alibaba at the summit. The most incredible thing that Joe Tsai said is that by government edict, essentially, they’ve mandated that 95% of all government institutions need to be running on AI by 2030. Where and you and I both know in any Western country, if such an edict or something happened, you’d kind of just say, let’s just discount this essentially to zero.
Speaker: 1
23:55
Maybe maybe it’s like PR fluff. But, you know, I don’t know, Jason, what you thought, but I was sitting there thinking, well, the only country that can probably pull this off is the Chinese because if they say Saudi. Sai. UAE Saudi.
Speaker: 0
24:06
Top down, you can you can, yeah, mandate it. Yeah.
Speaker: 1
24:09
So to your point, Ro, like, we’re gonna have an incredibly formidable competitor. And so in some ways, like, the infighting and the ranker just needs to get dialed down. Otherwise, we’re gonna miss the conditions on the field. And, you know, just to maybe pivot to this, you’re on the verge of a shutdown.
Speaker: 1
24:28
Can you walk us through the inside baseball of what’s happened over the last few days, where we are, what the sticking point is, and what you think the odds are that that this thing will get resolved, and what happens if there’s a shutdown? Can you just walk us through all of that?
Speaker: 2
24:43
Sure. Just two two points on on on AI, though. We do need to think about the job displacement and what we what we can do as a country. I I believe the federal government has to step in, for young people in particular to say, look. You can work for a few years if you can’t find a private sector job in helping on ai care, elder care, your communities, health care, government services.
Speaker: 2
25:05
Maybe we make AI so that the DMV works better, and and, you know, people start to think that the the government services actually are effective. But I I think there has to be a lot of thought put in, to the displacement and being ahead of the, ahead of the curve. And the only thing I’d say about China is while they’re formidable, the one statistic that made me think we’ve got a a lot of things right here that they haven’t, 20% youth unemployment in China.
Speaker: 2
25:30
And that’s because there are all these college graduates. They don’t wanna work vatsal, on a factory ai. And I I teased Lutnick about screws on the iPhone or something. You know, a lot of college graduates, they didn’t they didn’t wanna do that in Ai. And, at the same time, not everyone is gonna be, like, making EVs.
Speaker: 2
25:49
And so in our country, you do a lot of what the Chinese would say silly things. Like, you make dating apps, and you make comedy apps, and you make sports apps, and you do a lot of other things. And they don’t have that. And I think the the that gives us a huge advantage, in terms of the creativity and the the and the culture if we can get the basics right.
Speaker: 2
26:09
Now the government shutdown, the the fight first is over something that I’m biased, but I fundamentally believe is is a basic principle, which is if congress passes something, like, the president has to spend what congress passes. It’s it’s not discretionary. You know, Fetterman said elections matter. Well, the elections to congress matter too.
Speaker: 2
26:28
And you can’t just You
Speaker: 1
26:29
may you may just wanna explain to the audience because I’m not sure all of us are up to speed on exactly the thing that
Speaker: 0
26:33
that has happened
Speaker: 2
26:34
to me. Look. Ram said this view that, okay. Spending is too high. These agencies are wasting money. I’m gonna come in, and I’m gonna make certain decisions about cutting spending that that congress may have appropriated. He did this on foreign aid. He’s done it on some of the things with Department of Education. We can go through other programs.
Speaker: 2
26:52
I I got into an argument with with Elon when he was there. I originally said, look. I’m open to working, with Doge if there are reasonable, things that we can sai, but you gotta do it through a process. And they have a view. Their view is, well, congress arya never gonna do this. So we’re just gonna go there and we’re gonna do it. And, that’s not the way the constitution works.
Speaker: 2
27:12
And so you can’t expect Democrats to say, okay. We’re gonna give you our votes for a budget if it’s all discretionary, and Trump can do whatever he wants anyway with the budget. And that’s that’s the basic, fault line. The second, argument is over over health care. This is just factual.
Speaker: 2
27:30
If the tax credits expire on the exchange, people who are paying about $7,000 on the exchange would go up to about $21,000. I mean, you’d basically be kicking off a ton of people on the exchange off the exchanges, and Democrats just can’t do that. Now you can say, well, you lost the election, and I have no problem getting rid of the filibuster.
Speaker: 2
27:53
And the Republicans have the votes in the senate sana the house and the press Trump, and they can, they can pass pass the budget. But my my hope is that they will realize that these tax credits are worth saving, that they’re not gonna want people kicked off health care, and they’re not gonna want these premiums going up ai, and and that will be the deal.
Speaker: 1
28:12
Bro, the argument on the other side Yeah. Says that the the tax credits and the health care subsidies will largely go to folks that are here illegally. Can you confirm or debunk that?
Speaker: 2
28:23
First of all, it’s a it’s a very small, portion of people, that we’re talking about. So 90, is not, anything to do with those who are undocumented. That’s just the math. Right? I mean, so we can argue about the 10%, but we have in this country something called, emergency Medicaid. What does that mean?
Speaker: 2
28:44
If you’re undocumented and you show up to the hospital, we will take care of you. I believe that is correct. I don’t think if you’re undocumented and you show up to a hospital that you should be denied care. Well, who pays for that? We have an emergency Medicaid program.
Speaker: 2
28:59
And I guess if you mean that when you fund Medicaid, when you fund the Affordable, Care Act that, you’re saying you’re funding some of it for undocumented people who are showing up in, in emergency situations, then, yeah, you’re you’re you’re funding that. But ai view of it is that let’s be honest that that’s not where the big money and the budgets are. You’re talking about a small group of folks.
Speaker: 2
29:24
You can argue the cultural point about it, but don’t, don’t make that the the numbers.
Speaker: 1
29:32
So so for the average person watching, listening, what technically happens if there’s a shutdown? Like, what happens to their everyday lives?
Speaker: 2
29:40
Well, first of all, it’s a it’s bad for some of the public servants. Right? But will the Capitol Police will police officers get paid? Will, will military get paid? Will peep if they have a family member who is in government service, will they get paid? And they just may, as Americans or family meh, care about that, or you’re gonna have people without pay. Secondly, some services, they’ll start getting cut. Right?
Speaker: 2
30:04
Like, if you’re flying a plane, you may not notice it for a few days, but then after a few weeks, you’re saying, oh, they have less government, less flights because we don’t have enough people showing up or staffing at the airports. And, some of the parks may shut down. Things that involve the government that aren’t national security, urgent arya gonna get affected.
Speaker: 0
30:25
Let’s, talk a little bit about the censorship issue. This has come up multiple times. It’s a culture issue for sure. But why are both sides so obsessed with this? And how do we get this, resolved between both sides? And then there’s another both sides issue, which is political speech that’s violent, fight like hell, Trump is Tyler, stuff that I don’t hear you saying, but that we’d
Speaker: 1
30:49
Steven Miller is a fascist
Speaker: 0
30:51
You see that? Saying Gavin Newsom pressed it the other day. Yeah. Tweeted
Speaker: 2
30:56
it out.
Speaker: 0
30:56
He’s he’s gone full Trump in terms of the dueling.
Speaker: 1
31:00
Ai wouldn’t I wouldn’t call it full Trump. I would just say it was Well, just
Speaker: 0
31:02
the real ruling issue. It was really over
Speaker: 1
31:04
a lot.
Speaker: 2
31:05
Yeah. Yeah. Ai mean, look, there’s a way to to to argue. I’ve I’ve gone back and forth with Stephen Tyler, and and he he we we have exchanges. I’ve gone back and forth with vice president Vance. Sai mean, sometimes I think some of it is intemperate, but the point is it’s within a saloni.
Speaker: 2
31:19
You’re not he he he’s not, saying, you know, deport Bryden. And I’m not, using the words of, Hitler or or other things in in in in talking about him. I mean, you can have spirited debate, in a way that, isn’t pollyannish, is tough, but respects certain norms that the other person, is a person of intelligence, whose views you disagree with.
Speaker: 0
31:47
Is there no leadership, though, Ro, like, where when you’re in DC, people come together and say, you know what? The people who have the most to lose here are us. So it’s in our best interest in terms of self preservation for all of us to just speak in a more kind, civil way to each other because there are a large number of mentally ill people out there.
Speaker: 0
32:09
I believe that’s, like, at the core of this is mentally ill people hear different things when you say fight like hell or this person’s Hitler, etcetera, and they may act on it. And
Speaker: 1
32:18
Ai. Can I can I say something? I I think this is an important point, but I wanna just push back on that. It’s too simple to sweep it under the rug as a mental illness issue. Like, when you have somebody get assassinated, where the bullet says, hey, catch this fascist, and then less than ten or twelve days later, you have one of the, if not the most visible, leaders of the Democratic party in all caps screaming on x, Stephen Miller is a fascist.
Speaker: 1
32:42
I think that that’s just irresponsible. I think we can all admit that that is irresponsible. And that Ai think what happens is, as Roe said, the extremes have been amplified in an attention economy. But I think it’s too simple to say that they have something that can just be swept under the rug. I think that this is a chronic issue.
Speaker: 0
33:01
And, you can both sides it. You know, when when Trump said go fight like hell and they went and beat police officers, you know, at the Capitol, I don’t know if you were there, Roan, what that was like. I was. You were there and, like, it’s pretty scary, and that thing could have gotten out of hand.
Speaker: 0
33:15
And the Oath Keepers and Antifa, these are both radical organizations that will murder people, that will beat police. They’re they’re very disturbed individuals, in both of these groups. So I think you can both sides of this. And every time we see one of these crazy people, these extreme people, it’s it’s really the same profile.
Speaker: 0
33:35
It’s it’s white men who are disconnected from reality. So I don’t know how a sane person drives into a church, kills people, and lights it on fire like we saw the other day.
Speaker: 1
33:42
Jason, I understand. But I’m saying there there is a broad group of people that are committing these actions that are not just deranged. They’re being incited. They’re being programmed. They’re being pulled into behaving in ways that if they had other things, other attachments, they may not necessarily have done this.
Speaker: 0
34:00
Agree with that. If there was religion and family and they weren’t shut in and playing video games, I agree.
Speaker: 2
34:04
Let me try to wait, Ralph. Maybe it’s
Speaker: 1
34:06
not the right
Speaker: 2
34:06
time to debate. We wanna hear
Speaker: 1
34:08
you, Ralph.
Speaker: 2
34:09
No. No. It’s good. I feel like I’m in like a therapy session with a, you know, old married couple of poker chamber.
Speaker: 0
34:14
This is the whole point of the podcast is to be at the poker table. That’s great. Here you are at the table. Go ahead. Tell us your take.
Speaker: 2
34:19
Here’s my view. Obviously, it’s it’s that that ai extreme rhetoric is leading, in cases of political violence, but it’s more than that. Right? It’s not just the Charlie Kirk assassination or January 6 or the attack on Pelosi’s home. It’s also making us hate each other as Americans.
Speaker: 2
34:35
It’s making us incapable of coming together to say, you know what? I agree with Donald Trump with, the selling pharmaceutical drugs at a cheap price because that’s the direction that Bernie Sanders would go. Like, we can’t we’re not able to do that. Why? Because we’ve created such, anger and extremism and, ai in in in our politics.
Speaker: 2
35:00
And the reality is ai now, you’re rewarded for it. The the if you grab the attention and you show that you’ve kind of got vengeance on the other side, your poll numbers go up in within your own, base. You’re, you’ll get more contributions. I mean, we just need to speak plainly about some of the incentives.
Speaker: 2
35:20
And if the, election was in November 2025, the next presidential election, I think both sides would end up nominating the the side that’s gonna take it to to to the other one, the the own the libs, from the Republicans and, you know, fight fire with fire with everything and own the MAGA folks from from the Democrats.
Speaker: 2
35:41
I am hoping. I don’t know if that’s true. I’m hoping that people will see that this is a, ai downwards, that fire that fighting fire with fire leaves ashes for everyone. That’s what Emmanuel Cleaver says. And that we’ve gotta find a different way of of moving forward.
Speaker: 2
35:59
Ai the way, even people who agree with Trump on policies, there have been a lot of presidents in our country’s history, FDR, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Obama. Not all of them were divisive. There’s one guy who did that. And my view is, first of all, American politics disdains a copycat.
Speaker: 2
36:17
You’re probably not gonna be successful just mimicking him. And secondly, why wouldn’t you return? Why wouldn’t you want this country to return to the aspirational, inspirational politics, whether your choice is Kennedy’s
Speaker: 1
36:29
a right
Speaker: 0
36:30
Ai think people are gonna get burned out on it. So the the other two issues I wanted to to hear from you on is the the censorship one and then the the lawfare one. It was pretty clear that of the six or seven cases that were, done against Trump during his time off and and the Biden administration was in, you know, were were reaching.
Speaker: 0
36:50
Right? And maybe were law fair would be fair to say were law fair esque. And now you’re having the exact same thing Trump doing with Comey, where he’s firing the attorney general in that district, putting a new one in. So I’m wondering how you think about the censorship wars going back and forth and then now the lawfare ones.
Speaker: 0
37:11
Because we as moderates, and I think moderates are the ones who are swinging these elections right now
Speaker: 2
37:15
You guys are.
Speaker: 0
37:16
We’re getting very tired of it. I am exhausted with the fact that neither side will stand down on censorship or on the lawfare. What are your thoughts?
Speaker: 2
37:25
Well, on censorship, I have a particularly strong record. I when people sai, what makes you a different kind of Democrat? I say free speech. And all these people who got, outraged when Jimmy Kimmel was was pulled down were silent, often when Twitter was censoring, the New York Post with, Hunter Biden’s laptop stories.
Speaker: 2
37:45
And as you may remember
Speaker: 1
37:46
You’ve been very consistent.
Speaker: 2
37:48
Ai email leaked, where I said that, no. You shouldn’t be pulling down that story, and you shouldn’t be, having the New York Post, take that down. And then I got criticized from my own side even though I’m one of the strongest defenders of trans ai, and you we may have disagreements over my stance is.
Speaker: 2
38:05
Because I said that comedian who was arrested at Heathrow Airport for a transphobic post should not be arrested, that that you should not be arrested for that, I got criticized from from the left. So my point is then when I speak out and say, okay. Jimmy Kimmel shouldn’t be pulled down, and we shouldn’t be canceling speech or going after left wing groups, there’s at least some credibility because I’m willing, to say, look.
Speaker: 2
38:30
Our side is engaged in that kind of censorship as well, and it’s wrong when either side has it. And I think our side would have a lot more credibility in going after Trump even if they didn’t do it back then if we just acknowledge that we’ve got this speech problem on our side.
Speaker: 2
38:43
It’s easy to be for free speech when it’s speech you ai, like Kimbell. It’s hard to be for free free speech. The test is not will you stand up for it when you like it. It’s will you stand up for it when you don’t like it. And that’s Okay.
Speaker: 0
38:55
Now do law fair. Because this is you know, I I didn’t like it when they did it to Trump. There did seem to be, like, some situations where he was provocative or did some things that, you know, on the margins could have gotten you a ticket, let’s sai. But then you have, you know, these big judgments against him that I don’t think would have been brought if he wasn’t running for president again, or they didn’t want him to run for president again.
Speaker: 0
39:20
And now we have the same thing happen with Comey, and they’re literally picking the attorney generals and firing them and putting people in who’ve never actually even been in front of a grand jury just to get this, you know, revenge. And so it’s it’s a pretty dark time, I think, on the law firm front. What do you think?
Speaker: 2
39:36
Yeah. Look. I I don’t wanna relitigate, Trump’s, ai. I do think he did certain things ai January 6 others that were blatantly, illegal and and and unconstitutional. But I will say this, that we we whoever, going forward for the party should be make a firm commitment that, they’re gonna follow the law and not engage in vengeance and not engage in retribution.
Speaker: 2
39:59
And it’s sad to me that that that we’ve gotten to the state. I I understand. Trump feels like, okay. He won a second term. He was, spared from assassination.
Speaker: 2
40:09
He had everyone against him, and and and he’s gonna get the people who he he feels that he was wronged by. But it’s a it’s a horrible thing, for the country, and we’ve gotta we’ve gotta make make it clear that that, we’re gonna move past this chapter. Not that, okay. Now we’re gonna, Democrats are gonna come in, and we’re gonna go after, everyone on their side. I mean, then we’re no different than any other country.
Speaker: 1
40:33
Jumping off tangentially from lawfare, let’s talk about crime for a second. You know, you described your self described progressive Democrat. One of the themes around that is social justice reform. And you’re seeing some of the implications of that, the the abuse of no bail, the abuses by DAs who are letting umpteen repeat offenders out on the street.
Speaker: 1
40:57
You’re now seeing how that manifests in crime. Right? Everything from this this young woman from Ukraine who was brutally murdered to this young woman, the 22 year old who who’s killed as part of a home invasion. Her her father gave this gripping testimony a few days ago. Where are the Democrats on this idea of keeping the streets safe and law and order through the lens of the social justice reforms you believe in as a progressive?
Speaker: 2
41:26
So one of the things I say is that, my district, and I don’t say this to brag, I just say this to make a point, my district is actually one of the safest in America. Right? When you look at Fremont, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Sana Jose, they’re all in the top 25 safe cities.
Speaker: 2
41:43
And I sai, that’s correlated with the fact that we have $5,000,000,000,000 companies, Apple, Google, Nvidia, Tesla, and Broadcom. You wouldn’t have the economic prosperity of Silicon Valley if you didn’t have the safety of Silicon Valley because you wouldn’t have executives living there.
Speaker: 2
41:59
You wouldn’t have families living there. You wouldn’t have people, wanting to participate in the economy. So safety is essential if you believe in creating economic opportunity and economic mobility. And I think that there is a group of pragmatic mayors now. Dan Lohrey, I would sai, in San Francisco, Matt Mahan in San Jose, Raj Saloni in Fremont, who recognized that the pendulum had swung too far that, you know, I supported that ballot initiative that was on the ballot last last election that said, you know, if you’ve if you’ve are committing multiple crimes of, smashing into Walgreens, then you’re gonna be charged that they that you can’t just say, okay.
Speaker: 2
42:40
Yeah. We can keep smashing into Walgreens committing taking under a thousand dollars, and it’s okay. I don’t view that as being not progressive. I mean, progressives, I thought the whole point is you believe in the rule of law. Now if you say, yeah, you shouldn’t lock someone up for the rest of their life or a mandatory minimum’s fine.
Speaker: 2
42:59
But that doesn’t mean you excuse behavior that is
Speaker: 1
43:03
But how does a how does a 14 time phenolin, you know, never end up being held accountable and then is on the streets and then just savagely murders somebody
Speaker: 2
43:13
in criminal behavior? It’s totally unacceptable.
Speaker: 1
43:15
Ai mean, it It’s totally unacceptable.
Speaker: 2
43:17
Totally unacceptable. It happened with that Ukraine. I I don’t remember all the details, but I think it happened with that Ukrainian girl. It happened with this Indian American who was beheaded in, Texas where the That’s right. The person had all these arrests. And and you know what the the interesting thing is? I spoke out about about those, and I didn’t get that much pushback from a liberal base.
Speaker: 2
43:38
So I’m I don’t what I don’t understand is where the the pressure is coming from from just saying, look. We gotta be common sense in this country. Now I don’t think the answer to that is, you know, put federal troops like Trump is. But what the Democrat should ai, in my view, is, like, is that why is the country letting him do that, which we which I don’t think is constitutional or the right right, solution because they’re so frustrated with what’s going on.
Speaker: 2
44:04
And just citing statistics, you know, going out there and saying, well, the statistics are down.
Speaker: 0
44:09
Yeah. It doesn’t match people’s reality. They people are smart. And, you know, I think this is really a stupid strategy by the Democrats. If Trump sai, I’m gonna send in the National Guard because you guys haven’t done the job, the the obvious kung fu move to redirect that energy and say, yes.
Speaker: 0
44:25
Here are the five places. These are hot spots where we need those troops. If you could put these troops on these five corners, on Church Street, on Sixth Street, that’s where we need them. And, how long can we get them for, before you move them to the next hot spots? That would totally just take away what is an obvious play by the Republican party to make the Democrats fall for the trap of we’re pro ai.
Speaker: 0
44:49
We don’t care about people’s safety, which, by the way, is the they’re just so dumb.
Speaker: 1
44:54
It’s insane.
Speaker: 0
44:55
It’s so dumb. Like, why are Democrats, in this speak, from these specific cities, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, why are they so dumb?
Speaker: 2
45:06
Well, these are hard cities to govern. I mean, it’s it’s it’s
Speaker: 1
45:09
not dumb.
Speaker: 2
45:10
I mean They’re not they’re hard. But Right. Ai I I disagree, you know, because I’m always honest. I disagree with you on on the National Guard coming there, but I do agree
Speaker: 0
45:18
with you. Ai I agree with you, by the way, that it’s not constitutional. But in a situation where people are suffering day in and day out, what happened in Washington, DC when they put those speak when they brought in the National Guard, which you did ai the right
Speaker: 1
45:30
to do? Ai think everybody said I love it. Jason, Jason, before I think this comes down to leadership. When you look at these big cities, there are examples of when they have been governed well and it takes a point of view and the balls to just say this is how it’s gonna be.
Speaker: 1
45:45
The last best example of this is Mike Bloomberg in New York. Yes. I remember the first thing the first thing Mike did was he said sana out. Second thing he did, smoking done. It completely changed the way the world works.
Speaker: 1
45:58
If you guys meh, you used to go to bars everywhere
Speaker: 0
46:01
Yeah.
Speaker: 1
46:01
And you would smoke incessantly. And even if you didn’t smoke, you were subject to all this disgusting secondhand smoke. But when Mike did that one thing, it cascaded throughout the world. And Bratton takes leadership.
Speaker: 0
46:12
For him. Bratton did ai stat under Giuliani. But anyway, wrote, explain to us ai what the right solution here is.
Speaker: 2
46:17
Well, I think Bloomberg Bloomberg had a good record. I think Matt look at what Matt Mahan and and Dan Lohrey are doing closer to home. I mean, they’re saying, look. We need more police. We need to, understand that, if people have mental health issues and that they’re not getting off the street again and again and again, that you can go, to a court and say, like, they they need treatment, that that we need, to be a funding, a more temporary housing, not just permanent housing.
Speaker: 2
46:47
Because, yeah, we want permanent housing long term, but that doesn’t mean in the ai, we do, we do nothing. And, you know, so I I I think that they’re they are pragmatic. They would they’ve acknowledged it’s a problem, and, and they’re working at it. What I what I don’t think works is just denying people’s feelings because partly it’s like, when I was growing up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, we used to leave our house doors, unlocked.
Speaker: 2
47:11
Unlocked. And that’s the lived memory of a lot of people. And you know what the problem of doing denying it is if you embrace Trump’s whole thing is, look. Life used to be simpler in the nineteen sixties, and you could leave your doors unlocked. You had a good job. You worked in a manufacturing place.
Speaker: 2
47:28
You you you supported your family. And you know what? If you don’t wanna move backwards because there’s a lot of social progress we’ve made, there’s a lot of great parts to our our diversity and people from around the planet here, that we’ve gotta make sure that everyone buys into the future.
Speaker: 2
47:43
And safety is first for that.
Speaker: 1
47:46
Stay on this local theme for a second. Tell us about Mamdani. What is he? You know, it’s it’s $10,000,000,000 for, you know, bodegas. It’s billions of dollars for this. It’s billions of dollars for that. I think I heard recently he wants to charge a 2% tax on people above a certain salary.
Speaker: 1
48:02
He wants to charge any company that does business in New York City an extra tax. What what is
Speaker: 0
48:09
and how does he come out of nowhere and just run the table on the establishment?
Speaker: 2
48:13
Well, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you tell you why. And I, you know, I’ve campaigned in Candor for three candidates, on November elections, or I haven’t campaigned I campaigned for Abigail Spanberger, who’s gonna win in Virginia, Mikey Sherrill, and I’ve supported, Mamdani because of of the movement he’s had.
Speaker: 2
48:28
I think Mamdani’s success was based on two things. One, the the recognition that New York City was unaffordable and just speaking about that unaffordability. So there are certain things which are pretty practical. Like, most people don’t pay for the buses anyway. They’re on the buses without, paying the the ticket.
Speaker: 2
48:46
And if he wants to make the buses free, that that’s a a a reasonable policy. But he was basically saying, well, you can’t afford to live in New York. And none of the other candidates really spoke about that. They were speaking about crime and public safety, and they weren’t talking about, the economy.
Speaker: 2
49:02
And the other thing is, and, you know, I have a a a a differences on him on on on on on the Middle East. I’m for a two state solution. Ai condemned globalizing ai. But he was saying, look. There are too many people that are being killed in in Sana, and Netanyahu’s policies are wrong. And and that resonated with people in in New York City.
Speaker: 2
49:20
And so the challenge for our party is how do we, recognize the
Speaker: 1
49:25
Is he is he the is he the candidate of giveaways, or is he the candidate of where we realistically need to be in order to have stability?
Speaker: 2
49:35
I think he’s a candidate that is sounding the five alarm fire on affordability and the loss of the American dream. How he governs is, I think, gonna be, a challenge. And I hope that he he’s a very talented guy. I hope he says, okay. Look. I’m gonna sit down as I am with business leaders and, other leaders and say, help me achieve my goals. Like, okay.
Speaker: 2
49:55
I wanna have a rent freeze on the the, apartments that are controlled by New York, but I also wanna make sure we’re doubling housing construction and building new housing and how do we do that? I wanna make sure that if I am increasing taxes that that there’s not capital flight from New York City.
Speaker: 0
50:11
What happens if he which is pretty clear, if after winning, he’s
Speaker: 2
50:15
a complete
Speaker: 0
50:15
utter disaster in how he runs that city. What what does that do to the Democratic Party?
Speaker: 2
50:20
I don’t think he will be, but that would hurt us. Right? I mean, I I I don’t think he can have a a record, that is a that’s a failure. I think he has in fact, a lot of the progressives are are are invested in him succeeding and and making sure that he has a is a pragmatic, success record.
Speaker: 2
50:37
But look, I I think you would people who just wanna say, well, we should just reject Mamdani, etcetera. They they’re not understanding the the amount of people that he speaks for in the Democratic Party who feel like we need to tackle the economic inequality. He speaks to young people.
Speaker: 0
50:53
He’s he’s clearly hit a note on those issues. And then the question is, can he execute? I I remember when Dinkins came into office, that was when we bottomed out in New York. I was a teenager. And then that’s when we got Giuliani Bloomberg back to back and we cleaned up the city. I get Dinkins vibes.
Speaker: 0
51:08
If he doesn’t, you know, actually take on the the safety of the issue in addition to these other issues, man.
Speaker: 1
51:14
Ro, as we ram, just one last question, which is there’s a movement afoot to ban stock trading by people in congress, and you’ve been supportive of that. And then I think that we saw something recently that sai, I don’t even know if you know this, but somebody that manages your money has traded, like, 30,000 times, or something in some number.
Speaker: 1
51:33
Do you wanna just address what that is and where you stand on banning stock trading and whether it’s just simpler to move everybody to ETFs and just call this a sai?
Speaker: 2
51:43
I am totally for, a stock trading ban. I’ve led on that. I don’t trade stocks. My wife’s money was inherited, in trust that Ai no say over, no control over, and it’s in a trust. And the trust act would require actually every person to be, in a trust, and, that eliminates conflict.
Speaker: 2
52:04
So I’ve been very consistent about it, and I’ve been one of the leaders on actually
Speaker: 0
52:09
a ban on stocks. So what do you got? What tip any tips for us? What do you what do you got? Did you know
Speaker: 1
52:13
did you know that somebody somebody related to this trading 30,000 times a year? I have no idea.
Speaker: 2
52:18
I I I get
Speaker: 1
52:19
it’s like a citadel inside of RoCon. I don’t know if you know this, but it’s It has nothing to
Speaker: 2
52:24
do with it. Right? It’s not my money. It’s not I mean, I I have no and, frankly, I have no no no, involvement in it. And sai that’s the and it’s it’s
Speaker: 0
52:34
It’s tiny amounts too. That’s really interesting. Like, it’s, small bryden, lots of small trades. Anyway, whoever’s working for you seems to be doing a good job for
Speaker: 2
52:41
you. Not not for me.
Speaker: 0
52:43
Working for the family. Listen, Ro Sana, voice of reason,
Speaker: 1
52:47
ai honest,
Speaker: 0
52:48
and, just really excited for you to run for president.
Speaker: 1
52:52
Ro, last last question, actually. Last question. There’s still a pretty open field for California governor. Have you thought about it? And, if not, why not?
Speaker: 2
53:03
No. Because a lot of you know, I think you’ve gotta really have spent some time in in in Sacramento to to deal with those issues. And a lot of my issues have been, how do we build economic prosperity in parts of the country that have been left out? How do we, deal with our competitiveness with China and other nations? I’m on the China Select Committee. I’m on the House Armed Services Committee.
Speaker: 2
53:24
I’ve been focused on economic patriotism. And I don’t think you just run for a title. And so the type of person who should run is one who’s gonna focus on getting our utility costs down in California, who’s gonna focus on making our streets safer, who’s gonna focus, on building more housing and being a GIMBY and saying, that that we need to to do these things.
Speaker: 2
53:44
And so I think there will be good candidates emerging with those skills in California.
Speaker: 1
53:48
Ro, thank you. Thank you.
Speaker: 2
53:50
Thanks, Roach. Thanks. To
Speaker: 0
53:51
have you guys, enjoy it.
Speaker: 1
53:52
See you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker: 2
53:53
Thank you, miss Brown. Thank you, Jason.
Speaker: 0
53:55
Thank you, sir ai.