Piers Morgan and Vivek Ramaswamy discuss Israel-Hamas War, Putin, and Trump | PiersMorgan Uncensored

thank you so much indeed uh for joining me to today it's very timely you're here in Las Vegas for the annual Republican Jewish Coalition and they're one of the most important voices in the American Republican party you just came off stage you made a blistering speech there's no two ways about that this was fullon Hardcore pro-israel and it's come at a moment when many people are going the other way the ground Invasion has started as many more thousands of Palestinians are getting killed as other people are perhaps beginning to wobble with their support for Israel you've hardened yours why well it's interesting you say that pierce because I've just taken criticism in the other direction as well so before yeah well well even even from today's speech really it's the point is it's a little bit different than what anybody else is saying on one hand and this is the core of my message today I support Israel's right to national self defense it is an absolute right and Israel should be free to pursue whatever solution Israel wants to pursue that is their judgment to make without a second guessing them on the other hand I believe that that is Israel's decision to make and Israel's mission to carry out and the scope of the US involvement in this needs to be providing diplomatic cover a diplomatic Iron Dome as I call it for Israel to carry that out but at the same time without military engagement so there are voices in multiple different camps that have criticisms of some element of what I've said many in the neocon movement in the United States or the old neocon movement would say that I should unapologetically unabashedly support US military engagement I don't I'm an America First conservative but I also support Israel pursuing an Israel first agenda and I think that if we in the United States go back to our founding ideals I quoted George Washington's farewell speech where he warned against unnecessary foreign entanglements but also go back to David boran's vision for Israel that's really the true strength of the US Israel relationship is when it's grounded in the self-interest of each nation in that honesty and so yes I I'm a little bit different than traditional politicians but that's where I come out I want to read I want to be precise about it because I was as I was waiting to interview you I was looking at your tweets uh today actually about Israel and it just seemed to me and correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed to me you'd suddenly decided uh to take a much more direct and tough position and he said this now is the moment for Israel to return to its founding premise the Jewish state has an absolute right to exist a Divine gift gifted to a Divine Nation charged with a Divine Purpose Israel has an absolute unequivocal right and responsibility to defend itself to the fullest applying the only language its adversaries understand the language of force and what would David benguan say don't depend on anyone else's fleeting sympathies or permission to do it if Israel wants to destroy herass Israel should go ahead and Destroy herass if Israel wants to destroy hisbah Israel should go ahead and Destroy hisbah if Israel and mosa want to pull off Munich 2.0 and take out every last leader of Hamas whether they're hiding from Doha to Dresden and host a red wedding at the Four Seasons in Qatar they should go ahead and do it now when I read that I was I was a bit taken aback because your rhetoric about Israel I would say before all this back in the summer was not as strident as this well this in the wake of an attack what I'm saying is the principle the same the US should not be involved but when the US is not involved I think that's better for the US it's also better for Israel to be able to here here's the question I'm G to ask you it's it sounds to me like your support for Israel is they can do what the hell they like yes but you want to be president of the United States and there are many people in America you know this who are extremely concerned about the proportionate scale of the Israeli response already and it's only likely to get a lot worse before anything is resolved here is your support for them unconditional because it sounds like it is my support for their right to National self-existence and self-defense and carrying out whatever the heck they think is appropriate in response to the attack submitted on them yes it is not our job to get involved in this in One Direction or another but it is the American president's job actually to get involved in all these things because America I I I don't think so actually and that's where I differ from people in both let me let me rephrase it historically it's been America's position in the world to be leader of the Free World to be almost the world's Global policeman and it sounds to me if you were to become president what you're saying is any country can in interest of its own self-defense can do what the hell it likes and you won't condemn it is is there no limit to that well look I think that within the bounds of following international law right within the bounds of the legal framework that we all abide by yes it's not our job to be the global policeman and I think there's a lot to what you said there Pierce that's true the historically especially if you look at the last 25 30 40 years that has been the role of the United States is to try to play this role of global cop well I'm running for president of the United States of America and my job as the US president is to look after American interests that's a shift from The neoconservative View it's a shift from the model of liberal hegemony and I think part of this is because I come from a different generation that has seen the costs of 6 and5 trillion dollars of our national debt attributable to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that did not Advance us interests thousands upon thousands of innocent lives sacrificed in those two Wars alone yes I grew up into a generation where we saw that I reject that Vision but that means we have to practice what we preach in all directions that means this is Israel's right to defend itself they should be un constrained and unrestrained the IDF can I believe get its own job done for those who would call for US military involvement I say no my view to Iran is you stay out and we stay out and that's something that'll keep Iran out and we stay out of it as well but that's a different view also than saying that then I'm somehow going to second guess what decisions Israel makes no Israel has a right to National self-defense and we're not going to police them but the United States sends a lot of money to Israel every year you in the summer indicated you didn't say categorically and I know you've been misrepresented in some of the language that people have used about what you did say but you certainly suggested that by 2028 you'd like Israel to be autonomous from American Investment I said it would be a good destination if we did get there I personally think this will be better both for Israel and for the United States if that's a destination we're able to get to now to be clear from a US standpoint pragmatically speaking I've said that we will not cut off Aid to Israel that annual aid until Israel says they're ready for it but actually go back and look at BB's speech to Congress and 1996 he said that we have reached something like the end of our infancy and it is time for Israel to stand on our two feet that's approximately what he said in 96 BB's running Israel today but until America stops sending the money America does have a vested interest in what Israel does well I think that's a product of prior commitments but my view is the $16 billion we here well as we said here the $16 billion doar that Congress is debating now most Republicans favor it most many democrats favor it I don't I say this $6 billion Aid package forget about it we have a $33 trillion national debt crisis in this country a border crisis in the United States of historic proportions my job as the US president is to deal with that right here at home and yes I stand for Israel's right to absolutely pursue its National self-defense you don't want to help them not militarily diplomatically I do diplomatically standing for their right to do it I thinku and he's coming under lot of far himself but he would probably say well hang on what does that mean you're going to put this Iron Dome diplomatically around us yes the UN look at with the Secretary General the say we've always relied on America to be there for us militarily to be there for us financially you've we are there financially as I said We Stand by one of our greatest allies well as you noted I stand by our commitments we have $3.8 billion do in Aid that's going to Israel I don't propose cutting that off we've made that 10year commitment for a reason but I think actually I'm not sure that that's exactly what BB would say I mean I gave you what BB has addressed to Congress was in 1996 to also call out the unspoken truth here appears one unspoken truth of those carrier groups going to the conflict area part of the reason they're there is also to keep play Big Brother to Israel to sort of say what Israel can and can't do so I say go back to David Ben grian's founding vision for Israel that's what I would tell B get you do what you need to do okay but I would say to you the reason actually those carriers have been sent in is because because it is absolutely in America's national interest what happens now in this war because if things were to escalate and just before I sat down with you I saw a statement from the the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia extremely censorious demanding an immediate ceasefire saying that they think this this could be a disaster for the region you've got president erdogan of Turkey calling Israel of early war criminals now in a at a rally in in Turkey this is really escalating fast so I think we need to deescalate it and I don't think our military presence there help I'm I'm going to come to how that may or may not transpire but the idea that this is not relevant or pertinent to America's national interest is for the birds isn't it well I'm not saying that it's not relevant or pertinent what's happening in the world my question is does our military engagement help our national interests and that's a different question what about the number of little attacks we're seeing on American troops all around exactly proves my point why do we have troops in Syria why do we have troops in Iraq we were told the American public yes most people before this began in the last two weeks they would tell you we don't even have a presence in Syria and Iraq that's what we've been led to believe so we have Sitting targets and now we're going to create more sitting targets what are those sitting targets when they're hit they're accidental trip wires that's how major conflicts result when nobody on either side of that conflict has an interest in getting into it so I worry when you have a loose network of even Loosely Affiliated Renegade ban groups Islamic terrorist groups that are only not even centrally managed in any way you cross a trip wire and my rule of thumb for the us as our commander-in-chief I'll say it now I'll say it again if you hit us we will hit you back 10 times harder that's just a rule I'll stick to but if they're hitting us on bases that we shouldn't have been in in the first place we're creating the opportunities for escalation into larger scale Regional war that doesn't advance so I would bring them home Syria and Iraq but America has kept troops at a lot of bases around that region I'd get them out really yes because the whole purpose of them being there is to try and maintain some sort of order amid a lot of potential chaos and I think it's been unsuccessful I mean even if you look at right now the fact that we have that presence I'm going to stick specifically to Syria and Iraq let's be precise I don't think that that has serves any strategic purpose to the contrary it creates Sitting Duck Targets in moments like these that unnecessarily create trip wires for major regional conflict in the Middle East and so nobody has given me a good answer and it's I don't think nobody's given the American people a good answer on why the heck we are still in Syria and Iraq we shouldn't be there's no strategic interested issue there it's strictly downside risk especially in times of emotional response like this it's a bad idea all the way down so I stand by that principle now I'm not some sort of pacifist isolationist for the sake of being an idealogue about it no I look at every individual region of the world every theater through the lens of American self-interest and I worry appears the ultimate winner in this is actually going to be China watching us if we are mired in another large scale Regional prolonged no- win war in the Middle East China's the beneficiary of that and you look at the amount of Munitions we've given to Ukraine about 1.5 million rounds of artillery now we're producing about 20 to 40,000 per month in the US closer to 20,000 in fact it was not that long ago that 300,000 of those rounds that we held in Israel were sent to Ukraine so this isn't an endless cycle or pot that runs infinitely deep the foundation of war is economics actually and our economic and industrial base does not have it in it relative to even other points in our national history for us to be able to opt into multiple of these conflicts at the same time as US president as the commander-in-chief when it comes to war my principle is simple war and our involvement in it is never a preference it would only ever be a necessity but I worry that many of the steps that we're taking the people here are taking in the United States of America are sleepwalking us into World War III at a time where we can't afford it the United Nations uh voted a motion for ceasefire in this war the United States voted against that motion the United Kingdom my country abstained where do you sit on that I think the United Nations has outlived its purpose I really think that the statements that Secretary General gutterz met made I think on Wednesday this week were offensive they were senseless in nature trying to draw false equivalence between Israel's Behavior versus the Hamas attacks on Israel that false equivalence is everything you might if I see it from a 19-year-old freshman at Harvard College I call the kid lost and hungry in search of purpose and meaning but to see this from the Secretary General of the UN that's toxic I personally think that we should have an open conversation about the US's continued involvement in the UN I don't think that that should be a foregone conclusion really if you think about a body whose Human Rights Council is staffed by the rights of Venezuela and North Korea it's a farce it doesn't serve an actual ual coherent purpose and so this is just gas's statements in the last week are just he said he an institution that's outlived its purpose he said it's important to recognize that masses attacks didn't happen in a vacuum and Palestinians have been subjected to five Decades of suffocating occupation now I agree with the criticism that it was very badly worded because he was trying to imply that somehow the isra Israel the timing of that versus him saying that six months ago different two different conversations his yeah but on the wider point he was clumsily trying to make I think it is indisputable that the Palestinians have been suffering repression now for many decades it's indisputable we go back to 1948 that hundreds of thousands of them were displaced from their homes and that was the Catalyst for everything that's followed and you can argue as some journalists have been doing this week I think very powerfully actually Jewish journalists that I respect very highly saying you can you can say that both sides have just calls historically over the land issues and everything else but this attack on October the 7th was a a completely different scale yeah of attack and I don't think you should look at anything else but that in terms of what is Israel's response and the question for me having said that and I think you would agree with that is what is proportionate here so I want to be very clear about where I stand on this as someone running for us president I'm not running for president of the UN I mean Secretary General of the UN whatever it is I'm not running for president of Israel I'm running for president of the United States of America and my prism and I think that this is going to be the foundation of a future that will lead to Greater peace in the United States and I think around the world is to be very candid that my decisions will be made through one filter what advances the interests of the United States of America and I don't believe that it advances the United States of America for us to assume the position of a shadow icj and international court of justice deciding what is or isn't proportionate from our armchair position in Washington DC when we have problems of our own and threats of our own to deal with and so my view is again Pierce this is part of the broken foreign policy establishment in both political parties once you've crossed that Rubicon then yes you're committed to take stances on each of these questions let me ask you this it's not my job to adjudicate this as the US president there are the injustices in this country to most of the American people that's a massive departure that would be a massive departure for any American president to say has nothing to do with us right I I would say that Trump took us a step in that direction but this is a very different direct this is this is far further in that direction but Trump if he was sitting here now he wouldn't be saying this about I can't anticipate what he would say but I can stand from my view here even as it relates to the UN I I think that there's an open conversation to be had about whether continued involvement in the UN serves the US's or anybody else purpose so NATO I think is is a different conversation from the UN I do think that there's a convers first a table Stakes conversation with NATO when you have a majority of its members still not meeting it's minimum 2% well absolutely G that's why Donald Trump is right about that well I know but against what back stop right so if an institution any institution outlives its purpose it's worth reflecting on the continued existence of that institution many of these multilateral institutions like government agencies sometimes at home these things should have been task forces but an American president has to have a moral compass too do about whatever's going on anywhere in the world I have a moral compass particularly if they are allies that you are helping to fund and right now as youe treaty bound allies now there a treaty that that means something okay my question is this right now there are thousands of children you're a father two young kids I'm a father of four kids there are thousands of young children getting killed in Gaza innocent Palestinian kids half the half of Gaza kids women being blown to Pieces houses and whole areas being complet completely decimated a million Garin have had to move from the north to the South out of their homes which they will not be able to return to in most cases because they've been destroyed and they're going to be destroyed and I get that the purpose the Israel stated Mission purpose is to get rid of Hamas and I agree with them but how they do that the whole world is watching and the other parts of the region including Saudi Arabia they're on the verge of a new Accord with Israel and now recoiling at what they see as a dispropor response so so I disagree with some of that characterization my question a long-winding question but my question is on on a human level with the moral compass required by an American president do you not look at what's happening now in Gaza and slightly recoil at the scale of this and what it may become in the next days weeks potentially months do you not think responsible American president wouldn't say to prime minister Netanyahu just hang on here so so if I if I may peerson I appreciate you providing the backdrop for that question and I'm not giving you the answer no I know you're not I'm asking it yeah and and I take it as a as a question yeah as a difficult question it's a difficult answer on that standard we would have been engaging with most of the African continent for the better part of the last half century we would be talking much more about what's going on in the last three years in azaran and Armenia somehow interestingly something you don't hear PE peep about in the nagoro region we could go on and each of us has different capacities I mean you and I sh multiple things in common we're both fathers we've both lived the full Arc of what in this country at least we call the American dream right you've been successful I have a separate hat that I wear as a philanthropist I look to other parts of the world including especially the United States where I'm able to make a difference not the US president yet I've been you know as helpful as I can from East Palestine Ohio to Maui to chartering a flight that helping pay for a chartered flight for 200 seats for Americans to get out of Harm's Way in Israel that's different from the public policy had I wear I've been a businessman that's developed medicines to deliver medicines to patients who need them some of them life- saving but as US president which is the premise for our discussion here as US president I have a moral obligation it is to the citizens of the United States of America and this is there's a philosophy underlying this I mean you said you and our fathers you caught my you if you're going to catch my attention it worked it caught me Our obligation I think perhaps you would agree with me it's the way I sense it I my first obligation in the way I've lived my life to this date is to my family to those two sons those two boys we're raising and then we go concentric circles to my nation I'm a citizen of this nation not some nebulous Global citizen fighting climate change nebulously somewhere else I'm a citizen of this nation if I'm running to lead this nation as commander and gief I do have a moral obligation this is my moral compass speaking my moral compass is to the United States of America and once we have dealt with wage stagnation and a border crisis and the people who are suffering in this country the people who are suffering for threats vulnerable to cyber attacks super EMP attacks nuclear missile attacks from a Russia China Alliance that poses a great threat to the United States and our citizens today once we've dealt with that then maybe we can get to hunger in the Congo after that but that's the order we need to go in yeah but this sounds if you don't mom me saying this sounds incredibly isolationist it's not isolationist it's like taking Trump Trump's world view it's not isolation doubling down and making even more insul it sounds to me like the kind of presidency you want is one where you only really care about direct impact on American citizens which by the way I do that's that much I'm guilty of that much I will admit I get it direct impact on American Citi but I don't think the number one superpower in the world can just ignore a moral compass elsewhere in the world particularly in countries which are your allies so so I'm not I mean I come from the United Kingdom for example if we had if we had an a tack like this would you have the the same philosophy to us I mean it's a treaty about an ally right so I think treaties mean something and this is where I think but where is your moral line with what's happening in Israel right now let's let's work backwards here from an outcome we both want to avoid World War II right how did World War I the arch Duke ferdinand's death escalate into a massive war that killed Millions around the world only to lay the groundwork for then World War II which killed Millions more their accidental trip wires that people cross that then create escalation that nobody imagined and yet in retrospect becomes a configration I think we lose that Clarity when we're vague saying there's selectively certain and admittedly you're cty I have a problem with no no no but you're picking certain conflicts or certain areas of humanitarian crisis while outright ignoring others I get I say look at it through the if I one one one quick thought just to finish this because I think you can you can then at least understand the view even if you disagree I'm not saying don't get involved or not I'm saying the question of whether or not we get involved is is decided through one prism of whether it advances the American interest and so there may be certain cases in which we do make the determination that that does advance the American interest I'll give you one right now Taiwan if China were to invade Taiwan right now I think it is the job of the US to affirmatively defend why because we depend on Taiwan for semiconductors that power our modern way of life so you would if you were president you'd send troops in to defend Taiwan I would defend Taiwan and I'm not going to Telegraph exactly which means there are many means to do you hav't that before we've run a I've said that before people don't listen but I've said that before you've changed your position on that no I've actually been crystal clear on this at every step of the way now what I've also said where you might be getting that politics think is interesting you know I don't fault you for it because that's that's what's in The Ether I've said that very clearly we will defend Taiwan at least until we get semiconductor Independence in the United States at which point we will resume our current posture of strategic ambig defend Taiwan militarily but not Israel well I think that right now we depend on those little semiconductors for our modern way of life just purely finan Israel also doesn't need it I Israel but Israel provides a lot of stuff to America well here's my point each and this is the whole point Pier say it's not some top down cookie cutter analogizing I analyze each situation indep cool principle Israel is able to defend itself right now and I think Israel will be better able to defend itself if we don't muddy the watersan has no chance defending and it matters to the US your red line you said to me was American interest it was if American citizens got attacked we will hit you back 10 times harder okay but American citizens were attack so that's what makes this conflict difficult is Israel able to take care of that job if American targets are hit as American targets right let's say they know they're hitting us on an American base that's a direct hit on the United States if Americans get killed in Israel well if Americans kidnapped and taken hostage by Hamas we need to well right now you don't see any I prioritize getting those American hostages out that is a top priority I it is a top priority for me American minitary now right now let's just let's be Tethered to the facts as they exist they've been releasing hostages two at a time there's reports yesterday of Hamas willing to do a deal for American hostages to apparently a collapsed which is why the Israelis have started the ground war so if so if I'm commander-in-chief my top focus and there's a lot of levers here but you prioritize what matters getting American hostages home top priority so you would send sons and daughters so just to clarify you would send American troops in to get the hostages I would not take option off the table in a limited way to protect Americans right you protect Americans America First includes all Americans you did say earlier that you would not want to send any American Military into their situation I don't want US military involvement in somebody else's War you just said you send troops in to get the hostages American hostages only the American hostages Special Forces targeted but Pi paying attention to the negotiations I trust there are very clear delineations that Hamas has drawn right now for releasing civilian hostages of other nations just to clarify clarifi for this I mean you're not seriously suggesting that you would send in American troops down to get hostages forces or otherwise negotiators but literally only get American hostages rather than say Israeli hostages the the only condition under which we will have shown up there was because they hold American hostages right but but if we're there we're going to do the best deal we can to to to advance American interest which includes releasing Israel I would say there inconsistency to what you've now been saying about this because you started by saying we should have no military involvement in this whatever what I have said piers at every step I'll bring you back the North Star what advances the American interest that will be my prism that's different in different situations but the question is what advances the American interest and to me the America First agenda includes all Americans I did my part as I said I I personally paid for a charter flight with 200 seats to get people out of Harm's Way I've told you at the bases in Syria and Iraq if I'm commander-in-chief I want to bring those Sons and Daughters home and yes it would be a top priority if you're commander-in-chief you're making decisions holistically a top priority to bring our host our American hostages being held by Hamas yes and it sounds to me by your criteria that you've set out today in this interview that by that criteria as American president you would send American troops in the only reason I criticize that question Pierce is that there are many other ways short of that that we can get those hostages home now it is literally happening as we speak and or having this conversation so that is a strawman relative to the status quo of deal discussion with hostages actually being released and brought home and if you're US president you're not making each decision in isolation what your moral you set certain priorities and a top priority for me is American hostages what but what is your moral compass though if you were to witness Israel for example if this escalates and Israel which is believed to be a nuclear power they don't admit it but they believ to have nucle Israel is almost certainly nuclear power if they were to suddenly use a nuclear weapon would that cross a red line for you so my view is this what advances the American interest I don't mean to sound like a broken record those circum like a broken record well the but but but I wanted to offer Clarity at a moment where I risked maybe sounding ambiguous to you the real answer is each of those situations has to be looked at through the prism of what caus my overarching question was was is there a limit to what you would accept Israel doing as president of the United States is there a full accordance with international law and the laws of war do you think at the moment they are acting in accordance with international law and the Geneva Convention because many think they I I believe there is no evidence to suggest that they're outside of that in the context of the laws of just engagement in the context of what Hamas did I mean I absolutely think they have a right to defend themselves of what happened I think they're right to try and get rid of Hamas I've got to say when I am looking at my social media feed at the moment and I'm seeing a constant bombardment quite literally of these terrible scenes out of Gaza with screaming kids and women who've been slain and so on and so on and whole are is just completely leveled I'm looking at this and getting increasingly concerned about the proportionality of what is happening and also in the understanding that clearly it's going to get a lot worse and if I'm the American President Joe Biden has already said he's very concerned about this right it seems to me what you're trying to say correct me if I'm wrong but that Israel can do what it wants that after that attack there is no limit as far as you're concern sitting in the white house there is no limit and a lot of people will hear that particular let me let me just challeng one Prem finish question a lot of people will hear this particularly Americans American Arabs will hear this and they'll think well there's no limit the American president has no moral line that Israel can cross in their desire to get rid of Hamas I think there's one troubling premise baked in there which is that the US is the only nation that can have a moral compass I mean you're presuming that is what's baked into that question let's every country should have but what what's I let my country honestly I didn't let my country abstaining on the issue of a ceasefire have a view I was think abstention I also I also say have a view you and I share that in common abion is lame a lame resp it's a particularly lame response cowardly it's setion is is a lame response have a view and defend it if you're going to be at the table of a body like the UN if it should exist in the first place but what's baked into the premise of your question is that Israel has no moral compass and therefore it's the US's job to have one saying that well but but it is it's baked in the premise of your question that Israel is doing something the US has a moral compass say deci as you know there are a lot of people yeah around the world Millions hundreds of millions right especially in the Muslim world but not just the Muslim and why are we picking on this humanitarian C catastrophe or alleged humanarian catastrophe but not countless others in other parts of the world over the course of the last 20 years I think are leads to a slippery slope for the US to actually manage and so we come back to what are the relations between nations the job of each nation is to look after its National self- is it fair that Israel is able to turn on for example power and water and turn it off for the whole of it wasn't fair that Hamas came from Gaza into Israel on hang gliders to kill innocent civilians the UN boss clumsily put it this is not a new conflict this has been going is it fair that the Arab people the descendants of Ishmael have 20 some odd countries yet none of them will take on the Palestinians even as they nominally stand for them against the so I think these are questions that we should Elevate in our capacity as Citizens and as leaders diplomatically and I think this may hearing you appears this may be actually we might have a lot more common ground than the last 10 minutes might suggest there's a role for diplomacy I mean I'm not as certain in my view as you seem to be well there's there's a role for diplomacy here so is the role for the US to engage diplomatically yes around the world I think the US's accomplishment one of the US accomplishments under the Trump Administration that I respect was the Abraham Accords that was a diplomatic achievement not a military achievement and I think we should take those diplomatic achievements to the next level and so if I'm to level set our conversation where we might have risked talking past each other a little bit it's not that I want to be an ideologue and just say that we're going to be completely callous and have no view on it we have a view but what I'm going to do about it is going to be determined by the American self-interest one thing you've said today a diplomatic engagement and even that diplomatic engagement would be through the American Self having that conversation something that good leaders can do okay you talk about diplomacy was it diplomatic of you I think you repeated it again in your speech today to say that if if it was left to you uh you know you'd see Israel putting up the heads of the top 100 not that if it's left to me if it's left to Israel and that's what they decide to do I'm perfectly okay with that your idea yeah was that they put the heads on Stakes of the hund top Hamas leaders that's not diplomacy is it I and that's going to be literally a pouring a bucket of fuel onto a raging fire I I actually think that that might be far better Pierce as an alternative really to a prolonged ground Invasion with Gaza involving a bunch of civilians versus taking the top 100 leaders of a terrorist organization that are carrying out for of genocide isn't that the kind of medieval barbarism which they perpetrated on the people of Israel on October the 7th which I think there's one crucial difference the Civilized World should seek to be above appears there's there's a real difference there a fundamental difference one is an armed militia doing it against civilians versus is going after the perpetrators and I specifically said the top hundred leaders of Hamas and this is a fun conversation it's interesting to me because I've actually just taken objections the other way saying that that's far too Limited in scope right just to say the top 100 leaders of Hamas well why wouldn't we expand the scope of who we hold responsible so yes I do think that's diplom Obama never showed images of a dead Usama bin lad he didn't feel that would be the right thing to do he felt that would be too inflammatory is my understanding well I'll say two things in response to that Barack Obama is not my Arbiter of what counts as good diplomacy or not and second is each situation is different I mean each situation is different about asking what is in the American self-interest so I'm not saying on the Israel point I was very clear in my speech when I brought this up that is I said it about three times that is Israel's decision to make not ours and I think that that of provides a level of yes moral clarity about who the leader of a Nation owes an obligation to David benan had a vision for Israel self-sufficiency makes its own decisions for its own security George Washington in his farewell address in the United States of America had a vision for this nation the lead founding father of our nation that we look to the interests of our citizens without foreign entanglements and I think if we're honest about that I actually think that that opens up greater possibility for peace everywhere because both our allies and our adversaries can actually trust what we say red lines will actually be red lines because if they're crossed it means it really violates the national self-interest one of the other I look at it one of the other candidates for president Ronda santz has said that the students who've been protesting across American campuses um very Pro Palestinian a lot of Jewish students feeling very threatened by it some of these students actually beaming pramas imagery to the buildings at George Washington University and so on that they should be taken out uh if they have visas they should be revoked and so on you've said you don't believe in that because of Free Speech but again is there no limit to that Free Speech if people are actively supporting and promoting a terror organization like amass that's isn't that hate speech not free speech well to be clear I am a Ardent defender of the First Amendment so and I agree with it so the First Amendment does not protect against incite actual incitement to violence to say hey go kill that guy right there do it now shoot him that's not protecting about saying ham is so in the US the Juris Prudence on this I mean the US is very clear anything that is an expression of an opinion is protected so if you're expressing an opinion however heinous that opinion is protected by the First Amendment all opinions are protected now my view is some of those are heinous opinions we're the country the United States of America who said the Nazis could March in skoki Illinois many people around the world would disagree with that but that's what makes America itself I disagree vehemently with those Nazis but I will defend to the death this country in this country the right of anybody to express their opinion you'll defend to a death the right of people to be Nazis in America I write the right of people to express an opinion being a Nazi can involve more than that right if you're taking action based on that no heck no but if you want to but if you're promoting and supporting a Nazi ideology why would you want to accept that in America I don't want to accept that the way we defeat it why would you tolerate it tolerate it we don't tolerate it through free more speech you defeat it in the marketplace of ideas and we're not tolerating it because think about what you're doing to somebody who has that nasty opinion and then tell them that they have to keep it to themselves you tell people they can't speak they scream would you allow people if you tell people they can't scream that's when they take physical action so I don't want to see that would you be happy to see Pro Nazi no I'm not happy of course I'm not happy president United States you would allow it to happen Nazi marches I I'll tell you something deeper appears this is how it works in the United States it's not even my power to decide whether to allow it to happen the Constitution and the Supreme Court has already L held that the expression of heinous opinions is part of the American constitutional life to say that the government no government actor should ever decide which opinions can and cannot be expressed period that's what the first amendment is all about once we lose that once the government can decide which ideas can and cannot be expressed that's the ball game and and I've been the major defender of this from a right-wing perspective for years right saying that conservatives should be allowed to express skepticism of Co vaccines or the origin of the co pandemic or questions relating to race or questions relating to asking you have your vaccines again if you had your your time as a side not that's true yeah why I'm a young healthy man and I think that we have risks of myocarditis that are revealed now that weren't revealed then the only reason I took it was a matter of convenience we could travel you do accept or presume that many millions of people have their lives saved by the vaccines I think by vaccines other than Co 19 sure I think the co 19 vaccines I think that there's a deeper debate to be had about the cost you think they save millions of lives well I think I think the costs exceeding the benefits are really a case by human life the question is how many human lives were lost also as a consequence of myocarditis or other risks that are yet unest absolutely tiny number so this is this is an area that strikes near and dear I've studied the myard thing extremely thoroughly including in young men what cost benefit anal because actually I've got three sons in their 20s and at least one of them thought he may have had myard so I studied it personal to you so I I developed five medicines which are FDA approved today the ultimate hypocrisy at the heart of our regulatory regime here's his on one hand and I'm an absolutist in both directions here on one hand this FDA in the US that says you can't even try a medicine or a vaccine unless it's been through 10 years of testing you don't have the right to try it I reject that I'm a right to try absolutist I think you should be able to make an informed decision for yourself of whether you want to take take that risk or not but part of being a right to try absolutist is I'm a right not to try absolutist too just because the FDA has pushed it through nobody should be mandated to take but you're not suggesting just to be clear you're not suggesting that more people died of myocarditis as a result of taking vaccines than the number of people whose lives were I'm not making an empirical claim I'm making a normative claim that everybody should be able to decide for themselves there was a tiny number of people who died from myocarditis and every vaccine has people who have reactions I'm not I'm not diminishing I think they were deer I'm not was a problem nor am I saying that with hindsight clearly younger people were not as affected by CO as older people we now know that as a fact so My Philosophy as a policy maker is medical Choice absolute in both directions medical choice to try what hasn't been approved you should have the right to make that informed decision and just because it has been approved under no condition should it be mandated that's that's the policymaking matter let me read you a quote from Nikki Haley one of your other Rivals to be president she says you want to go and defund Israel you you want to give Taiwan to China you want to go and give Ukraine to Russia under your watch you will make America less safe now we've discussed Israel you've clarified your position on Taiwan and I think it's significant that you now said you would send in American troops to defend Taiwan should China try and attack it I said we would militarily defend you'd send troops in milit it depends on whether ground troops are actually what matter or not you could talk about destroyers you could talk about ssgn would send American Military in to defend we would militarily defend Taiwan yes at least until we've achieved semiconductor Independence I that wasn't and I'm the only candidate who said it but it wasn't what you used to say Pierce that's false I have said yeah it is false you can check this for yourself I have always said the part that these people are picking at is the fact that I said at least until Taiwan G semiconductor Independence so you look at my early statements on this all the way back to the Nixon Library so here's where I'm curious again at least until semiconductor Independence is the part that these people trip up on all right so here's where I'm curious again so if Taiwan gets attacked and invaded yes by an authoritarian regime like China you wouldn't hesitate to have a American Military defendant and you know why well no you've explained why yeah because we depend on them for our modern way of life that is business okay so well not business it's our modern way of life these lights wouldn't work right now and our phones would this brings me neatly to Ukraine yes which was invaded and attacked it's a it's a sovereign Democratic country it was attacked Democratic with an asterisk no no democ Asis well it had a massive majority voted for democracy well much of the regions that occupied haven't been represented in Ukrainian in Ukraine's Parliament for N9 years right so table Stakes discussion there but is okay you can call it as democ I'll say democracy but it was attacked and invaded by Russia uh and you originally when you first tweeted about it you were quite censorious about what Russia had done and pro Ukraine your rhetoric I Pro Ukraine but I but I but I found it offensive I mean I've said this every step Putin is a craven dictator okay Putin is absolutely a craven dictator is he a war criminal I don't know I don't have enough information to suggest he a war criminal the icj makes that judgment again the US the US president you don't think what he's done in Ukraine constitutes a war crime based on what we've seen a lot of it looks likely to meet the icj's test but I don't think the US president it makes it meets any test well I think that a lot of people have committed war crimes then on that basis right so you can't just selectively single him out well illegally invading a sovereign country here myew is a crime for us to get on the same page is Putin an evil dictator yes he is just because Putin is bad does that mean Ukraine is good no it does not okay this is a country that has banned 11 opposition parties this is a country that has Consolidated all of its media into one state TV media arm this is a country that celebrated a Nazi in its own ranks in front of the Canadian Parliament zalinsky did this is a country that's effectively threatening the us not to hold its elections unless the US Forks Over more money and also against the backdrop peers it's worth wondering why that initial incursion to keev went nowhere but lansen Donetsk were easily captured without counter resistance why these are Russian speaking region many residents there don't even view themselves as part of Ukraine they view themselves as part of Russia and for the better part of the last decade almost 10 years they haven't even been represented in the Ukrainian Parliament there large we have to measure that against the fact large ways of United States English speaking should we should we have it back what's that large parts of America are English speaking should we have have that back well all of them crer all of them have been represented in the revenge for George third's incompetence well hang on you're all speaking English every one of them get so actually we're having it all back I think you're you're purpos you may not be purply avoiding the I might be king of United States of America it's the dream of many Englishmen perhaps but that's okay it's not going to happen no I don't get your point because the whole point is they weren't represented in Ukraine's government okay and the United States national identity is different than the cultural identity of the people in the ideologically what's the difference between racing racing American Military to defend Taiwan but but in your case wanting to stop funding American Military Support for Ukraine right at the moment many would say it's never been more important because my basis for preventing China from invading Taiwan right now was not that Taiwan is a democracy my basis for doing money is that there's American self-interested issue our modern way about all the food stuffs that come out of Ukraine our food self we could be self-sufficient in this country the food stuffs that come from Ukraine to the United States is not going to affect our modern way of life I mean that's the hard answer so for you secure Financial calulation it's not just Financial self-interest it's it's not a moral calculation of whether the US selfed selfish it's American Centric and I think it was actually selfish for the leaders of the United States to indulge their moral vanities while leaving Americans holding the bag here at home and here's the other thing Pierce we're not having this conversation in a vacuum look at this how how well has this gone forking over nearly $200 billion direct and in kind I think it's gone incredibly I tell you I think it's gone I think it's gone let me exp disastrous let me explain why everybody assumed that Putin would run over keev take control that was a wrong assumption pick out rest because because there was a Ukrainian counter Insurgency there because ukrainians fought for their Democratic rights and why didn't they fight in the dawn freedom and I remember a time when America used to celebrate you're missing one this you're missing one super important detail here you actually made your own made the point that I would like to make which is the reason why Russia has succeeded in the parts of the dbas they're occupying is that the people there have more of an affinity for Russia than they do to Ukraine so you can't say democracy sometimes but these people don't want to be part of Ukraine it isn't actually true because most of the of the polls show that the people in those regions still want to be part of Ukraine many of them don't and that's why there was no counterinsurgency some don't I was told it was like 10 to 15 they haven't been represented in Lanson yet small percentage they have not even been represented in the Ukrainian Parliament would you really if you won the presidency in 2024 I would do a deal that ends this What's your deal I mean you and Donal Trump talking about we going sort it I'll give you detail in my case I'll give you detail you give you would give Putin what he's taken I won't give I won't give give him anything there's a deal what would you give him I wouldn't give him anything I would give him a deal what's the deal he's going to take that well here's the deal he has to exit his military alliance with Xi Jinping end the Russia China military Alliance that's the top threat that the US what do with Ukraine and in return what we get is a hard commitment that NATO will not admit Ukraine to Nato in truth that's just keeping what about the land well this is the most important part is the NATO hard this is what matters most to Putin there's other parts of this deal I can talk about on both sides the most important element of each and then I can go to the second most the most important element is Russia exit its military alliance with China we make a hard commitment that NATO not admit Ukraine to Nato which by the way peers that violates we've systematically violated a commitment we made back in 1990 James Baker the US Secretary of State made a commitment to G tell me on this deal and then and then here we would freeze the current lines of control what freeze the current lines of control you give Putin everything I would freeze the current lines of control what you mean what does that mean these are Russians speaking regions that are occupied today you would literally give Putin what he's stolen you would give a guy I'm not giving anything I'm giving him a deal what did you describe him as to me it's conditioned what did you call Putin he's an evil dictator you give an evor so are countless others land he's stolen by killing people you would give him the land Pierce I'm not going to give him anything I'm giving him a deal you've just said you give him the whole I'm not gonna give him that's your word not mine I give him a deal what I would do is no we would require Russia to exit its military alliance with China what threatens the United States of America you CH milary allian you're president of the United States and you say all right uh Vladimir I know you invaded illegally a sovereign Democratic country and they fought for it's not a democratic country Ukraine is not a democratic country Ukraine is not a democratic country don't agree with you I mean look at what they're doing to the Ukrainian Orthodox church right now let meish this is it's just a myth but we're having a mythological conversation Ukraine is not a democratic country people of Ukraine voted for democracy a massive majority except for the ones that didn't vote that happen to be in the regions occupied by Russia but you would give this area they've stolen back to the Russians right right so you're tell you're telling condition you're telling I would not do anything other than we get what we want you're telling every evil dictator in the world you can go and invade any country you like take whatever land you can in a Bloody War for as long as you here what I find fasc eventually I'll just give it to how much how many hours of your show or minutes or seconds have you dedicated to what azerbijan has done to Armenia and nagoro kabak on the different region on the other side of Caspian zero is probably the answer just like every other me major member of the media why because Ukraine has been as successful in selling this Pi Piper myth in the United States as aeran has yet what aeran just did in nagoro kabak over the same region dating back to even September of this year pin drop silence so if you're going to apply that standard you would be applying it far more broadly but applying your standard as president of the United States my my standard is stay out of them all because if you're in Ukraine for that reason the United States would be in 10 other conflicts right now and so you're selectively applying it if I may say Pierce not even to the best example you could make Ukraine is not a paragon of ch's quote about crocodiles and appeases right well that's applied selectively analogizing some element of history as opposed to analyzing what the individual situation is and so where is aeran Armenia why is that not part of the conversation just because the media has decided that that isn't what we're going to pay attention to because it's not what the cool kids are talking about likely because it's Christians at stake let's be honest about that so this is a country in Ukraine that's gone after the Ukrainian Orthodox Church this is a country that has banned 11 opposition parties this is a country where the regions of Russia that have been occupied several of those provinces lansen donet in particular not even represented in the Ukrainian Parliament so the idea that this is some Battle of good versus evil is a farce and even if you're going to pick good versus evil there's a lot other better examples to pick and I'm principled to say that we should not be making those moral judgments for other people when my moral obligation is to the people the unit States of America but you have just made a moral judgment you've actually said to an evil dictator you can come and grab that land and keep it no that presumes that it was our job Jud it presumes that it was our job to be able to say yes or no in the first place that is not the job of the United States of America the job of the United States of America is to be strong and look after its own citizen we have a different view US it used to be maybe from an out you know maybe from looking from old fash call me old fashioned but I remember in World War II when the Americans came in to help Britain finish off when Pearl Harbor was hit yes I mean it's the hard answer is better late than never would be my response to that well America when America was attacked itself then America did come into the war and did help Britain win it that's correct when America was hit that happened thank God they did and I I'm grateful that America and Europe should be grateful that we did and now NATO can spend maybe 2% of its GDP on military spending which it's still failing to do so much for gratitude so on that point I agree with you and I agree with Donald Trump and he he did the right thing when he said NATO was obsolete he meant the way the finances are not being paid by a lot of the member countries they're just not a majority of them are and they should be um let's turn to conspiracy theories people think you're a conspiracy theorist H are you no I'm a conspiracy realist I believe in actually some of the most mundane so-called conspiracies have been obvious realities hiding in plain sight think I people said it was a conspiracy theory by the way when I said that the like many others the coid pandemic originated in a lab in Wuhan back when we're supposed to buy this wet Market most did and most likely that it did so I think history has taught us that many of things that we reject do you believe the I'm Guided by fact do you believe the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax no do you think the the parents of those kids who died were actors no okay so why did you appear on Alex Jones's show those are two very different questions because he two fundamentally different questions well they're not because in fact this is a guy who's propagated I invited him on my podcast and in that particular instance I gave him an opportunity to say what people should listen to this actually what respects everybody what did he say he said he was wrong so what he said he came on we sat in a conversation just like this one he said he was wrong and he regretted it and so I think that this culture of creating why would you invite someone like that onto your podcast who give me some examples of people you've have you ever isn't it called Truth have you ever T what's your podcast called truth truth and PA to truth runs through free speech and open debate so you have the worst liar in America a man who call see I don't believe in creating obstacles to let me finish my character assessment of Alex Jones right I didn't make a character assessment I'm about to make one of him right because as you know he was found guilty in October 2022 of defaming the families of aandy victims after years monetizing the lie that it was a hoax and the families of the Dead were actors he's been ordered to pay a collective 1.5 billion dollar to the people who he so sickeningly defamed and there's you a guy who wants to be president of the United States inviting this guy saying that was dead wrong he was dead wrong now my view though Pier is and the whole premise of the podcast all the people I've talked to Chris Christie said when he heard you did that he said I could care less for what Chris Christie has on own well I think it's disqualifying to anybody who believes that we have to preordain who we do and don't talk to you give platforms to just blatant conspiracy theorists to come on and talk about the truth I think that part of the reason is what's a conspiracy theory yesterday is a truth tomorrow you challenge him about Sandy H hope I did and I told you what he said actually for as far as I know it's the first time I've heard it said I think it was useful he said it was wrong he regretted it he made a mistake human beings have made mistakes not the first time he said he said it to me well good so what you platformed him yeah well interesting Pierce IAT why would you do that because I spent the entire interviewing interview going after him about his Wicked lies also had a mother one of the victims on because I was on air at CN open debate is good I like you for re I like you for that reason but I think the American way is not to decide there's certain parayas and people we don't talk to far left far right I mean look I went on The Young Turks podcast something the Republican presidential candidate doesn't do either I practice what I preach when a protester shows up up to my I I was in Iowa crazy protester just barges in in the back of the event security is taking her out I said bring her back we'll give her the microphone that's just how I roll I believe it's the founding Spirit of the United States of America that all ideas get expressed and the way we defeat bad ideas is through free speech and open debate and and so unlike others peers I practiced I my you got again you've got to have some limits I don't I disagree with that well then with with respect to the expression of opinions violence is a limit right I mean I don't stand for violence of any form Direct lies did inspire people to commit acts of violence against these families people turned up and threatened them as an act of violence he literally of a violence with his the in the the expression of a heinous opinion is different than not and it was taken to the court system we have I mean the court systems have handled this that's different from saying that somebody should not be talked to by a fellow American I just don't think that's the American way let me talk to you about guns generally because there was another horrible mass shooting yeah in America in the last few days 18 people killed um I saw your Tweet response and it was a very conventional Republican response to mass shootings of which there are now so many you can almost hardly get over the one before before another one and it was all about mental health and this and this and the one thing you didn't it's really important top it's not like a mental health I mean this is a real fundamental topic many other countries have mental health problems just at the same level that America does the difference about America almost exclusively of anywhere in the world is that America has 400 million plus firearms in circulation so when people are mentally unstable or sick they have easy access to guns and you didn't mention the word gun in your in your statement and I was curious why not do you not think guns play a part in gun massacres well obviously guns definitionally for your you know question somewhat tological there guns play a role in guns massacres they don't play a role in massacres of other kinds you think guns kill people I think people kill people using guns and using other instruments to do it have you I give you my policy perspective you're interested in that let me ask have you someone shoot someone we let you indulge with what the let clever framing you have let me get the question right have youever known the clever you known a human being shoot somebody dead without a gun I I I know whatever the setup is I'll give you whatever the I lost track of it setup but what whatever the premises that's the question guns have been people have pulled the trigger of guns have killed people I I think let's just get that on the table yeah sure tological but that's useful policy question I'm curious look as as a a citizen who has a home in America I can go and get a semi-automatic rifle very easily tomorrow yeah and I'm not even an American citizen I just have to apply for a hunting license give my American address and I and I'll get access to any Firearms I want I can I can Ki myself up like Rambo right Legally Legally what I can't do in America is buy a Kinder surprise chocolate egg they banned on safety grounds well I think that makes no sense you're a very bright man I'm a medical food choice can you explain to me why it's deemed more dangerous that I should have a chocolate egg with a little toy inside that might choke people compared to an AR15 semi-automatic rifle that could slaughter a lot of people in a very short period of time so I am a pro- freedom person and so I'm not going to sit here and defend some other foolish restriction that the United States has on a million things that I'm generally against but I can speak to the Second Amendment the Second Amendment is not about a technocratic judgment of about maximizing or minimizing the number of people who were killed the second amendment is about something else altogether it's analogous to the discussion we just had about Free Speech it's a different value judgment are there risks to allowing Free Speech yes there are but we bear those risks because that's who we are that we trade that risk off to say that's how we preserve Freedom when it comes to the First Amendment the second amendment makes a similar value judgment the purpose of the Second Amendment actually wasn't to allow people to have the freedom to hunt that's not what it's about it was about repelling and keeping a foreign in that case started British Monarchy at Bay it's like mutually assured destruction in the Cold War both sides have nuclear weapons well that's how you assure a stable peace it's a mutually assured destruction relationship between the citizens and their government between the governed and their government right that's what this is about and so why is the United States of America still for all of our imperfections 250 years into this ball game still place that when you open the borders as sadly one Administration has people don't go running out but they come running in why is it the country that still gives hope to the Free World one of the reasons why is the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment is the one amendment that gives teeth to all of the other amendments in that Bill of Rights so that's a value judgment we make the second amendment was not written with the question of what minimizes the number of deaths those are other policies it was you could arm yourself as part of a well regulated militia and then over time actually until the 80s uh in America it was considered by the Supreme Court to mean just that and then as the NRA got more political and became less apolitical and some hardcore Republicans got onto the board of the NRA they then put pressure on the Supreme Court which they eventually were successful in doing in reframing the interpretation of a second amendment to mean an individual right to bear arms and what has happened I think the history is a lot more complicated but what has happened and it may be a complete coincidence what has happened since that reframing of that interpretation is that the number of mass shootings in America has begun to Skyrocket and they didn't used to happen in anything like these numbers I think I think we can debate my question you're a smart guy right there are 400 million plus guns in circulation in America it's not for me to tell Americans how to lead their lives it's not for me to tell you what laws you should have you and your president this is a major issue you're going to have to confront I can guarantee you that every month every six weeks there will be a mass shooting of some sign significance that will command your response and every month a million new guns will be sold in America adding to the total that are available and you're going to get as the population increases more mentally ill people too to me it's just a NeverEnding worsening cocktail so my question really is what do you do about if if no part of a solution involves guns how do you ever expect it to stop so I think that in the data that you cited a lot of confounding variables one of which is the rise of Mental Health crisis in this country you could look at data points over certain periods where before you really saw rise in violence you could see per capita gun ownership being about flat over the same period that you did see violence and killings rise one of the biggest explanations is the shuddering of psychiatric hospitals in this country you had to draw the lines of correlation there are many ways to draw lines through a scatterplot over the same period that you saw the shuttering of psychiatric institutions you saw almost a direct inverse correlation in the other direction in the rise of violent crime in this country and so yes I do think that is a major issue that we need to address among other things by bringing back those mental health institutions allowing people to communities to be able to under certain conditions involuntarily commit somebody who is psychiatrically ill and poses a demonstrable danger this guy that just did the shooting that's exactly what happened he was admitted to a a clinic he should have remained committed said he was hearing voices he actually said I'm going to do a mass shooting he should have remained committed and he was allowed to go home where he had Le there's mistake but that the mistake in that case I think in every case you have to look at the circumstances yeah and so if you're looking at Trends in every case is different someone who loves America and loves Americans I just see this as such an extraordinarily bizarre thought line that when when for example Osama Bin Laden attacked America on 911 and killed three around 3,000 people in the World Trade Center everything changed right there was an absolute visceral determination by American to not let that happen again and we made made we made some bad mistakes in the aftermath of that the Patriot Act and everything else on down but I flew here for example from New York to see you here in Vegas and the amount of regulations that are now involved in flying it changed irrevocably after 911 and I would say good right I feel safe and not just for the purpose of convenience though for safety but it's for the purpose of no no no but I'm going the other direction I think those were mistakes we made the surveillance don't you think would you allow people to get on on on planes with guns I mean the the idea that the TS is doing anything but I mean these checks they're garbage doesn't make a difference would you make it doesn't make an iota of a difference it's show it's for show are you saying you wouldn't restrict people from taking firearms on on planes I mean I'm just talking about a PIV a hard fact here Pierce no people should know this people should know this literally people are allowed to right now allowed it happens already right now private Aviation literally literally of the thousands of private flights that are happening every day it's a farce we create in the airports it's a show it's Village standards on private planes are a different issue but on commercial commercial passenger flights at the moment it's illegal for people to take firearms on board a plane would you let them do it I don't think the people should be taking the infringement of their second amendment rights so Pierce is it the the the surveillance state is the real problem after 911 I get it okay what's the answer to my question I think the people should be able to check it in in the cabin that's the answer really check it in yeah you can't access it what's the risk you would allow Americans to just take or actually anybody check it in in the I could go get my gun and just take it on board not in the passenger section of the cabin in the check section of the cabin in the hold yeah like they can't access it while they're on actually in the cabin cabin checkin not in the cabin you know carry on your checkin back but this is getting very pedestrian very quickly it is and I think the question there's a deeper philosophical question at I'm actually philosophical question how you stop all the mass shootings well first question is who's committing the mass shootings people who were severely psychiatrically ill there's a stat something 18 out of 20 of the people have committed the last number of mass young grown up in fatherless hous young men right who grew up in unstable family envirment disenfranchised from society but the underly is also almost invariably able to acquire very high powered in my estimation I know some got so go after the Cure don't go after the symptomatic After People The Cure get to the root cause and you started talking about it you're right you that tells me you understand this no no I do understand it and have get to that root cause disputing any of the root causes you're putting forward but like so get and let so let's have the courage to address those root causes because anything else diversion it's going to show up somewhere else I the SYM as I said to Donald Trump I would love a republican politician because in Britain we have very few guns and when we've had gun outrages nobody's taken a political view right or left they just didn't do it like we had we had 16 well Britain's a very different country and as somebody who we don't have the guns I agree you say but you this this is I'm enjoying this discussion pierus you say you love the United States of America I'm glad to hear that I just want to make sure you know no no no I think it's Jones tried that he failed Barack Obama saved me for the nation not my St true story what is that Alex Jones got a petition up to have me deported okay after My Views after Sandy Hook well I believe in free speech and open Obama was President it was a White House petition it reached the number that required a response from the president I was live on air when I was told Barack Obama has saved you for the American people I'm not entirely sure the American people were massively grateful at the time but I was grateful to the president is that why you like him I liked his you know what he said and you'll love this he said he was support diplomacy uping my rights to the First Amendment so if only he applied that standard even-handedly when he weaponized the IRS to go after conservatives then I might even give an iota of credit but back back to the question of Your Love Of America yeah I mean this in a you know we're having a I'm not even going to cave out what I say you've been pretty free with me I'll be free with you please do keep my nose out of it no no no no no no which I totally understand no no no no no no no that's that's a that's a cheap comment I just make sure you know what you say you love M right because I think that there's parts of the United States of America like the essence of who we are not some Fringe feature the soul of the United States of America that I think make you a little uncomfortable I think that's the truth I mean the idea that anybody gets to express their opinion no matter how heinous that opinion the idea that you get to own a firearm for the express purpose of holding the government at Bay I think those ideas make you uncomfortable I think those ideas make a lot of people uncomfortable I think those ideas make a lot of people uncomfortable and this is something that I have to then admit as an American and I admit it and I embrace it like a badge of honor the American ideals the American Revolutionary ideals they're not moderate ideals they are radical ideals you know they're extreme ideals that is what makes America itself so make sure you love that and I if you do I'm I'm thrilled I love your honesty in saying that actually I do because we got to call it out that's what it is I'll give you that and I'll also say that there are obviously things about the culture of my country country which Americans find inexplicable too right so I get it it's you know I've been down this road many times because I take it very I don't know viscerally I think when I see these massacr I just I hate seeing them especially the school shootings as as a human being my visceral reaction is and it's the old Einstein you know in Reverse really it's like the the idea to me of total insanity is that you do nothing and nothing and nothing and nothing expect a different result but you're assuming that that was the purpose of the thing in the first place it was a very different purpose I totally agree the purpose was keeping the government at Bay I know but I don't think that's what's now behind all these mass shootings I think it's a different but but there's you're smart guy like so I think I want to just track something you said your response to what happened in the aftermath of 911 I think you didn't get to fully completing we went on a different strand but to complete it I think you were kind of painting that as a good thing and I was pointing to the same set of facts and describing it as a bad thing let me explain let me explain I was the editor of a major national newspaper in Britain which vehemently opposed the Iraq War and we were the lefter sent a newspaper that Tony Blair the L Prime minos the Iraq War you mean opposed the Iraq War yeah is in Iran no big deal no no Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq yeah yes get it right opposed the Iraq War and uh and I'm very proud that be I think it was a devastating mistake fought on the completely false pretext of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction which or having anything to do with 911 which they lied about nothing to do with it I think it's a different argument about Afghanistan and I have listen I have my brother was a serving British army officer served in Iraq and Afghanistan as did my brother-in-laws or the military my family served alongside Americans right so uh I have a lot of vested interest in that um America I understood the distinction of in that case clearly Al-Qaeda were using Afghanistan as a place to plan Terror attacks against the United States I understood you have to go and get them it's not dissimilar actually to what the argument you're seeing used by Israel now with Hamas and it's incredibly difficult and very complicated I don't know how you go and get terrorists who are surrounded and embedded with civilians without killing a lot of civilians and it's a moral Quagmire which I don't think anyone can satisfactorily answer actually there's a different dimension of this response that I I was wondering and if you had a view on I do is the adoption of the Patriot Act Right the restrictions on our freedoms spying on our conversations the idea that somehow because two people have a telephone conversation but it's a post 911 era the government can listen into that without a warrant I reject that I think those were mistakes and I think you and I have different worldview where would does that does if if the sole question is how many lives are saved you might come out in one place my resp if the separate question is what are our founding principles of who we are in this country you come out in a different place and so whether it's the first amendment or the Second Amendment or in that case the fourth amendment I think that whether or not you want to have different views the only thing I would say is I want more people loving the United States of America but I'd rather at least most people know the United States America and deci they disagree with it to think they it but realize that actual is they imaged I person think the radicalism of the American Revolution is a beautiful thing that's how I think we're going to unite this country but it's not going to be at pretending that those are moderate ideals because they're not okay tell me who wrote this after January the 6 it was a dark day for democracy the loser of the last election refused to concede the race claim the election was stolen raised hundreds of millions of dollars from loyal supporters and is considering running for executive office again I'm referring a course to Donald Trump I wrote those words in my book in the same ju position to Stacy Abrams filling that you stand by them so look I think that here's what you went on to say Trump delivered another tale of grievance here no one likes a s loser one of the worst victimhood complexes of all said his claims about the election were weak so here's my point what he did was downright abhorent you I mean do you stand by all that stuff you said about Trump and January 6 the reason I have a different View today is that they have been going after him so there's a time and place to say something okay I tend to not say what everybody else is saying at the time and part of the reason is what needs to be said needs to be said when it's hard not when it's easy but I think you were right to said at the time I said the same thing I fell out with him over the time so so I would have I would have done things very differently I would have done things dramatically differently and I will note to you I'm running for president in the same election As Trump but against the backdr of him not being prosecuted for this I think it's I take the other side of this to you don't think you have the election stolen do you well I think that to tell you the truth where the election stolen it was stolen in a different sense of the word and we can go into this if you want big Tech Google and other search algorithms and the Sens a very interesting point I think that that's that's really where the real issue is as I said to him when I interviewed him I said you're fighting the wrong stol election claim what do you mean I said Well when the New York Post story exposing Hunter Biden's laptop that was the real issue that when that was basically vaporized by big Tech yeah to protect the bidens and R and you and I both look at the same polls those would have changed the result of the election could have ch so there's evidence of a potential election so on that I kind of agree yeah that's that's what I've said all along here's say that's not the position he takes well it's fine and we are allowed to have different positions my position also is the 2016 election was the real election that was decisively stolen from Trump the one that he won for sure decisively every agrees he W because he wasn't allowed to govern with an impeachment in how are you going to be every time he gets indicted it's quite extraordinary situation I think these these politici if I just finish my thought let meish question indictments are wrong okay all of them I think all of them so far are wrong his Mother Teresa I don't say he's Mother Theresa but he's not a criminal so nearly a hundred criminal charges they're all baseless so the ones I've read I mean those are four indictments we're talking about I read each one thoroughly okay okay each one is using each one is using a novel legal Theory so so even innocent assumes that the thing that's even being alleged was you genuinely believe he's innocent of everything he's been charged with I think we can talk through each one and I yes I believe the answer is innocent because the legal fiction of the charges themselves elves are made up interpretations of the law that have never been used in this country how are you going to beat him by convincing voters that I have fresh legs I am from a different generation and we're in the middle of a war in this country and I do believe that we're in the middle of a war between those of us who love this country and are founding ideals but Trump loves the country and we're all on the same side of this war right we're all Trump myself Etc I even think many Independents and Democrats are on the side of this war those of us who love this country and are founding ideals and a fringe minority and I do believe it's a fringe minority who hate this country and are founding ideals that's the real div and so how am I going to beat him how am I going to beat the rest of the Republican field the question is who is the right General to now lead us to victory in that war well here's one of the tricks half the people on the other side of that war Pierce are people younger than me who never learned those ideals in the first place we can bring them along too now we're talking about somebody who has not been wounded in that War I have fresh legs I am 38 years old 5 years older than Thomas Jefferson was when he wrote the Declaration of Independence but less than half the age of the other people who were running many of them so I believe I have an ability to take our America First agenda to the next level and honest to God I would love Trump as an adviser as a mentor telling me exactly where the bodies are buried in the administrative state or otherwise to be able to go further he rolled that log over we saw what crawled out I'm bring the P VP I've Tau him as a mentor I don't think he would take the VP job although I haven't asked him I'll keep it on the list but I think that you tempted to highly unlikely that you T to run out and commit a lot of crimes to get indictments to get your poll numbers up I'm not going to do that I'm going to wrap up very soon just a few little quick ones and and the truth is Pierce I just think it's really important that again you understand this I think you understand I'm not mean to be preachy but there is a difference between making a bad judgment and committing a crime and I think it is a danger to our Liberty I'm not saying to conflate those I'm not saying it's a criminal and have you read those indictments extraordinary of Affairs where someone can face that volume of criminal indictment and his poll numbers keep going up I mean in England that candidate would be dead and buried after the first barrage of them right however unfair they may be that's on the politics of it I think that the reality is the opposite here is the fact that all of these indictments are coming at the same time right as he's running for office using novel legal theories that have never been proc I think a lot of that has has Merit has to do with the fact that he's running I think they're over egging the sule as I would say the opposition I think they're they're just determined one way or another you hang out Trump you ever talked to I've talked to him a few times when was the last time it's been a while yeah probably before the first debate easily yeah do you think he should is he being bit gutless not getting on that stage I think as long as he's this far ahead I kind of get it but I hope that we have a chance to have open discourse in this race but you know it's like you're the NBA Playoffs the team that's you know number one by a stretch gets a buy you know we're about to have the third debate I know I'm focused on making sure that I'm the clear second before confing I think you're a great energizing force in the race I've said this to you from the very start I've interviewed you in much shorter context many times but we've sparred we've had our fun but I like it and also I think you you get out there and you put yourself in the Li's Den which I respect I do respect it and I had to say we haven't really got into it but all the woke Madness stuff you've been absolutely Rock Solid on and I completely agree with you I appreciate you saying that the thing is and this also about me is related one of the other questions you were asking I wrote the book woke in back when it would actually was a risk to write that book yes you did now the reason I I don't I mean I share all the same beliefs but I don't talk about it as much because I mean any Tom Dick and Harry can go criticize wokeness today right it's the new popular thing to do it's almost what the cool kids are doing the people who are doing it today were the people who are too afraid to do it in 20 I think what I I absolutely respect about you saw the dangers of it and you saw that it was becoming under the guise of liberalism it was becoming a new form of fascism and I I think you served a valuable Public Service in blowing that lad up and I I feel it's beginning to turn I I think it is too the majority of people are just sick and tired of it well I think I think this election makes a big difference in that result just in terms of not even the laws we passed there's some element of that but just the tone of national character that we set in the country because if you think about what allows you know wokeness or anything like it to to Fester it's a deeper generational hunger for purpose and meaning and I think it's been a long time since we've had president that has revived and spoken to our national character and that's half the job I mean people Grill on policies that's just half the job the other half of the job is do you have an understanding of what our national character is and then can you actually bring it back well let me ask you about your character for young people were able to do that let me ask you about your character very quickly how how rich are you VAR by depending on the stock market you know uh billion on a good day and uh you know maybe 600 million on a bad day but US Dollars yeah yeah a billion on a good day yeah maybe a little more on a good day yeah do you like being a billionaire I don't particularly relish the title I am not one of these people that that's been a life achievement of mine I I'm thrilled that this country allowed me to achieve everything that I have I'm proud of my accomplishments I don't apologize for success but I also don't fetishize green pieces of paper I think sometimes it's something that leads people to deep unhappiness and I've been around a lot of them and I'm careful to make sure I don't become one of them either we we try to live in a way that you maybe would reflect a fraction of that net worth in a way that actually hopefully allows our family to avoid some of the traps that some of my wealthier friends have fallen into your wife aova I think is how she pred it she said your two best qualities were your joy and optimism is that what she said that's nice of her what do you think of that is that that true yeah I think I'm I'm a naturally a very optimistic person it's funny she says that because she's the person who experiences my crankiness the most at times but but there's a joy and optimism in there on certain days it's buried more deeply than others when was the moment you knew she was the one for you we were hiking a mountain in it was a Flatt top mountain in Colorado we were in uh Rocky Mountain National Park and she was the one who was beating me all the way up the hiking trail she had actually done kilamanjaro not long before that but we were we were going pretty hardcore to the top I had been there to the top before and I wanted to show it to her and it was just the final maybe three 00 ft 200 feet to the to the top but there was a massive snowstorm that set in and she's somebody who's made it to the tops of these mountains before I said I was going to go and wanted to wanted to you know make sure we saw that through and she grabbed my hand and said we're going to come back and do this sometime in the future but we're going to have a long future together and we turned around and we made it all the way back down that mountain and and you knew and here we are yeah how did you propose I proposed it was actually uh you know the the real story I mean the cake was baked long before I proposed I think that we wanted to get to a place where both of our families were all there we knew we knew what the destination was going to be and uh yeah I haven't told the story before but she she sort of said all right all right like at this point I don't really care about the ring or anything else if you don't get on this you might find me proposing to you un let's just get this over with so I got a uh so I was you know put the perfect ring plans to one side and we got a little Ring Pop and we did it in the streets of New York City a ring pop what's that it's like a little lollipop as a ring it's like a big Ruby you gave your wife a lollipop ring she was thrilled with it and you're a billionaire man what were you thinking yeah I wasn't at the time you know was working my way up but uh but we got her her uh did you at least go her red ruby ring to follow though did you go on bended knee I did oh yeah yeah we we went through the whole thing on bended KNE oh yeah yeah we did with your lollipop ring with with the lollipop ring yeah it was in a nice case though it was in a very nice case and what is finally what what is the secret to to married life o I think we um practice actually is is is a good way to look at it I think that if you look at every iteration as a round of practice then that presumes that you're on the same page about the destination you're just iterating and practicing to to you know get to the per the version of perfection and so it's never perfect but it's about the pursuit of perfection and romance are you a romantic guy I I I maybe on a good day yeah what's the most romantic thing you've ever done I don't know what I can't I can't profess on my own self- romantic thing I don't know I feel like a little bit uh I'm not I'm not a guy who's going to Pat I could think of some examples right now but I'm not it's not the kind of thing that I want to give me a little bone you know I think romantic bone I think that it was uh maybe one of our I I don't know how pora felt about it but our our Valentine's Day gift she's she's a tough one to please because she's not really into uh you know stuff she's not a she has stuff she's not particularly into stuff but I thought about what I could do that that was better than her which are few and far between but I gave her a tennis lesson and we actually and we actually and we actually went through it and she's naturally athletic person but we picked something up that we were then able to do together for a while really yeah so I don't it's a small thing I don't know but there's no big ceremony around it I get that yeah it's a nice thing yeah and she and she loves it she seemed to like it yeah who wins I mean I it's the sport I've played since growing up she's a better volleyball player that's what she played so you basically got her to play something you knew you could beat her at I had to pick something had to find something she usually has me beat out is that basically your character at a nutshell you know it's interesting I'd have to do some Freudian introspection for that one this might that might have been the toughest gacha of the whole interview the whole thing was leading to that it's good to see you it's good to seeing you man I appreciate it yeah I enjoyed it thanks very much thank you man

Channel: New York Post

Views: 488,677

Keywords: new york post, ny post, nypost, news, latest news, piers morgan, piers morgan uncensored, vivek ramaswamy, vivek ramaswamy piers morgan, vivek ramaswamy piers morgan interview, piers morgan and vivek ramswamy, piers morgan vivek ramaswamy interview, vivek ramaswamy interview, vivek ramaswamy interview 2023, vivek ramaswamy piers, politics, elections, vivek ramaswamy 2024, vivek ramaswamy piers interview, elections 2024, donald trump, vladimir putin, russia ukraine war, russia

Id: 3f3hsoPqaQo

Length: 83min 54sec (5034 seconds)

Published: Tue Oct 31 2023