Charlie Kirk Analyzes Trump Versus Kamala Harris Race and Where Independent Voters Will Decide Election

Charlie Kirk has joined us. You know, Charlie was with us at the RNC.

Is now with us at the DNC. Of course, with Turning Point USA. Chuck. Okay, not talking point USA. Okay. That was what I said last time.

That was hilarious. It is kind of funny. Charlie, I'll start actually real,

real quick. So obviously when we last talked,

you know, you guys were riding high. It looked like Trump was in great shape.

Now it looks like Trump's spiraling. And I'm curious

if you agree with that or not. - It's the best week ever.

- And now we got work to do. I wouldn't say spiraling, but I

mean it's probably a 50 over 50 race. Slight advantage

Kamala like slight advantage. Probably because she has a lot

of momentum, some vibes behind. I think the momentum is slowing. But yeah I mean look you have

to live in reality. And we had a great convention and it's

you know, we've had a couple weeks where they switched out a candidate

and it's never happened before. And we're going to see like how real it is

in the coming weeks. I think the race really starts

on Labor Day. So we're really kind of sets in. But yeah, I mean I think we're going to

see a race that's very tight to the end. You know, it seems like the Trump camp

was kind of caught flat footed by it. Like, I really did assume that the

campaign is like a lot more strategic this time around compared to like 2016. 2016. It was just kind of like chaotic,

but it worked. This time around,

I'm actually a little surprised that you have this strategic campaign. The RNC went really well for Trump. I thought they were kind of preparing

for the possibility of Biden dropping out and Kamala being the presumptive nominee,

and it seems like he was kind of caught flat footed. What are your thoughts? - I mean, we.

- There is some preparation. They should have listened to you guys. You guys were the most confident

when I came on the show. You're like, no chance Biden stays. And because you're actually in touch

with the Democrat base, like, I watched it on TV. So I'm in touch with it at all. And you guys are like, no way these days.

And I was like, really? This late in the game,

you're like, not going to happen? No way. And you're of course, right? I mean, it's hard to prepare for something

that's never happened before. And I will give the RNC credit. There was a fair amount of Kamala

mentions, you know, in the original written speech, Joe Biden wasn't even

in the written speech for Donald Trump. But I think what caught us by surprise,

and I would love your reaction to this, is she was generally appeared

as an unlikable candidate. Would you agree with that, Ana?

Like as far as the media depiction, right. And now she's the most likable person

like Obama 3.0. That's what kind of caught us flat footed,

not even the person, but all of a sudden, and I attribute it to a lot of pent up, Democrat based enthusiasm

that was not allowed to be kind of let out of the volcano the last year and a half. And then all of a sudden there was

somebody that wasn't named Joe Biden. And she had she had a couple weeks

to ride that wave. I don't know if I'm analyzing

that correctly, but. Yeah, I have a couple thoughts,

but go ahead. I just want to say,

I mean, that did surprise me because it did seem like a switch overnight in terms

of the way voters felt about Kamala and the way the media felt about Kamala. Right. Like it seemed to be more critical

when she wasn't the presumptive Democratic nominee. But I really think the psychology

behind it is here. You have an 81 year old man who is

definitely going to lose to Donald Trump, can barely put a sentence together. Every time we would watch him speak, I

mean, my shoulders would tense up because, you know, it's going to be pretty bad. And I think I think the relief

is what led to the excitement. I think that's exactly right. And so I'm curious, do you think it's then

Kamala is a placeholder for Biden relief and is that sustainable? - Yeah.

- No, no, there's something different. So look, first of all,

I agree with both of you guys tonight. But I think the larger point is

the third point that I'm going to make. So was there a moment of like,

relief and ecstatic, like reaction because hey, oh my God, we might win. You know, we were going to lose

so used to the. - Headlines for six.

- Months, right? It was so depressing. And he and Biden was such a terrible

candidate, and even the ones defending him knew he couldn't speak, right. So they knew it inside.

They just wanted it. They were in their loyalist camp.

So part of that is definitely right. And then the media had a reaction

because let's keep it real. They want to support

corporate politicians. And lately they've been in love

with corporate Democrats. So but they were they got mad at Biden

because they thought that he lied to them, but more importantly,

that he made them lie for him. Right? They're like, oh, he's not too old.

He's not too old. And then it was revealed

that he was too old. And so and the media

was like bitter at Biden. But when Kamala Harris is around

and they're like, all right, a corporate Democrat, we like, okay, you can speak.

Yeah, she can speak. But that goes to the third

and most important point. Before I was a little bit

worried about Kamala. I wanted an open convention, not because I

didn't think she would be the best candidate, but I was not positive. I certainly wasn't sure. Right. And I wanted an open competition. And that's because she was doing a lot

of word salads, okay, in the interviews. And so anybody can see

that it's clear as day, right? But now she's not doing it anymore. And so my best guess

is that she had anxiety issues. And that's why she was doing that. And right now that's your her

speeches are lucid clear good. She's putting she. Hasn't done interviews lately

or do you think. Yeah.

No she should definitely do interviews. The reason she wasn't doing interviews

is because they were getting her economic plans ready. And so once she has them,

she could go out and defend them. Before,

she didn't want to do the interviews without having all of her proposals ready. But the fact is, she's been good on

the campaign trail and she made it Tim Walz pick, which we all like. We like her economic populist positions. So it's not just like,

hey, the media likes her. And hey, at least she's not Biden. She's done positive things that have

galvanized all of the Democratic voters. So no, that's helpful to know. And I'm again, I'm literally here to learn

because I'm not in touch with the Democrat base. But do you stick to your position

that she should have won it through an open convention? I mean, for me personally,

I'm not going to speak for Jake. I just think that if you are going

to run a campaign on the importance of saving democracy, then you should engage

in the democratic process. And I do have a problem of feeling

as though she was kind of like foisted on the Democratic voters, but the

Democratic voters seem to really love her. So I guess my question is when they

when Joe Biden won the primary votes, was she also on the ticket

when they voted for the primary candidate? No. So so that would have made

the argument stronger, right? Because they would have said that they

still I think it was just Joe Biden. Right? Yeah. Not. And so, yeah, an open convention probably

would have been a little bit of a mess. - Yeah.

- I mean, that's the reason why. The process would have just I mean,

right now, it would have been the most entertaining television ever. - But.

- Yeah. So listen, the open convention was would

have definitely been the right way to go. And for one of the, one

of the main reasons is what you just said, which is that everybody on the planet

would have been watching. Right. - I think it actually.

- Would have helped. It would have definitely helped. It would have helped,

and it would have featured a lot more Democratic candidates, and it

would have gotten them a lot more hype. It would have gotten a lot more viewers.

A lot more free media earned media, right. So it was the right way to go. But to be fair to Kamala Harris,

the main reason I want an open convention is I wanted a candidate

to be able to prove that they can get the most amount of delegates, and she did that within 24 to 48 hours. So she did actually go and campaign. She had a huge advantage.

She's the vice president. Biden endorsed her. But if you remember, Pelosi,

Schumer and Obama did not endorse her. Do you. Think that was legit

or was that a little bit of a. - No no, that was.

- Legit. It was. They were waiting

to see how it played out. - Yeah.

- Yeah, yeah they were. And so since it was legit and she won

the delegates without Obama's endorsement or Pelosi's endorsement, I said,

well, I mean, that's what I wanted. I wanted her to win the delegates

and she won the delegates. Is it a perfect system?

Not even within a million miles. Would we have been better

with an open convention? Yes. But after she won the delegates,

what would we do with the convention? She already won them,

so it kind of ended the conversation. So I want to go back to Trump

because I you said that you're not in touch with the Democratic base. I kind of feel the same way

about the Republican base. Right? Okay. So this is what I want to understand

because, you know, you watch the media and sometimes I wonder,

am I just buying what they're selling? Is this reality? And what they're selling

is that Trump is flailing. Trump is really struggling

in campaigning against Kamala Harris. And he's really not helping himself

by saying things that turn a lot of voters off, right? Remember, the election comes down to

the independent voters, the swing voters. Those are the people who end up being the

kingmakers, the deciders of the election. And he can't stop himself

from attacking her on her looks, calling her stupid like things that turn

a lot of independent voters off. Right? But how does the Republican base

feel about it? Like, are they eating it up?

Do they love it? Or do they want him to go back

to a more economic populist message? They're definitely, resolutely behind him. There is a different way

to look at it, though. The question is will independence

decide the election? Because you can also run up the score with

your base, which Democrats have proven. You could do that in certain elections.

And I think you guys would agree. If you have a strong base and you're, for

example, getting 60% turnout in a strong county, get 75% turnout, it's actually

sometimes easier, but that doesn't. You're right. You do have at least 10 to 15%

in the swing states of tilt swing independent voters. I think that the media is misrepresenting. I think Trump's had

a fine couple of weeks. It hasn't been the best for the campaign,

largely because the headwinds have been so dramatic. I think he's at his best

when he is making the argument that I am against the establishment that has robbed,

whether you guys agree with it or not, I know you don't, but I'm saying he's at his best when he

makes this argument that the establishment has been robbing you, that this power

regime has been lying to you, and I am an insurgent against those things. I know that is what. So that is a very popular message I agree. Yeah. My my advice to him is be the renegade

you were in 16 because fair or unfair, I think it's, you know, fair to present this argument

that the power centers have consolidated against your campaign in record ways. And he has a sentencing hearing

in September, which will definitely play into his argument

that they don't want me to be president. So they're willing to use unusual ways

to try to prevent me from being president. And so, yeah, look, as far as the month

of August, I think from his perspective, he's like, I beat one candidate,

now I have to beat another. He had the debate with Joe Biden. He saw this thing happening, and he

realizes right now that he's going to have in a compressed time frame, you know, a very, very competitive race where

against Joe Biden, I don't think it would have been very competitive at this time. This convention

would have been so not good. Hey, don't scroll away,

come back, come back. Because before the video continues,

we just want to urge you to lend your support to TYT. You power our honest reporting. You do it at t.com/team

and we love you for it. Charlie, here's the thing again

totally agree that if you run against the establishment,

that's your best chance, right? And I think that before I got the sense

that people loved Trump for Trump on the MAGA side, now I get a sense that

there's even a splinter group that says, I actually don't love Trump, but I love

that he's fighting the establishment and I hate the establishment so much. I'm going to vote for Trump, right?

But he hurts his cause massively when he's constantly pleasuring donors on stage at rallies, when he says like,

oh yeah, I was against electric vehicles. But now Elon Musk is strongly endorsing

me, meaning giving me $90 million, right? Yeah, and it might be more than that.

So now I love electric vehicles. I will give Trump some credit

if you listen to his Twitter space. He was pretty. They had a back and forth. They were talking more at each other

than to each, you know, with each other. But he's still he still says he doesn't

believe the electric vehicle mandate. To be fair. Right. He doesn't believe

in the subsidies for electric vehicles. So I mean, I'm sure there's

other examples you could list. But look, politics is never going

to be pure as much as we'd like it to be. But I think that President Trump

has done a very good job of having this economic populist message. And the other message that needs

to be talked about, which I think is the Achilles heel of the Democrat Party,

where Bernie Sanders used to actually have a great position on his immigration. And the vast majority of this country

thinks that we have too many people coming into the country too quickly

and an unvetted way. And the economic populism

one Kamala Harris I said this on my show. She has put the Republicans on defense. I think her policies are insane,

to be honest. We could debate

that might be not a good use of our time. I think her policies are insane,

but they're very popular. They're very popular. To say, I'm going to make it easier

for you to buy a home. I'm going to, you know,

make grocery prices more affordable. I think it's price controls

are a bad idea. But immigration is a very difficult issue

for the Democrats. It's very difficult for them to navigate

because the body politic thinks that we have too many people

coming into this country. And I think President Trump

needs to lean in on that. So sorry, just real quick. Last thing on the donors.

I hear you on immigration. - I'm happy.

- To. Yeah, yeah. But so, you know, you got Elon Musk,

you got the oil companies where you just keep saying, hey, look,

they're giving me money and we should drill, baby, drill and all this stuff. He just can't help himself

from being obvious. But the number one, like the one that I.

I'm curious as to your take. Miriam Adelson. So when he's saying, hey, I gave her

the Presidential Medal of Freedom, first of all, she's a donor. Why did you give her

the Presidential Medal of Freedom? That's terrible. Right. And and that's better

than the Medal of Honor. That's a disaster. Right. So what do you make of that? Like, are you bothered

that he's saying those things? No I'm not. I mean, he's probably, you know,

he's pro-Israel. He's not he's not going

to share your views on that. But yeah, I mean, he was he was

pro-Israel throughout his presidency. What you're getting at is,

is he pro-Israel because of donor money? I don't believe that. And you don't think do you think

he should have given the Medal of Freedom to Miriam Adelson? - I don't have.

- A strong opinion on that. I think he gave it to her

also because of her philanthropy. I could be wrong. I mean. Philanthropy towards Trump. I mean. She did give billions of dollars to like,

Children's Hospital, stuff like that. I mean, while we're at it,

I mean, actors and actresses get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Right. Like Tom Hanks got the presidential medal

like legendary ones. And I guess if legendary donors now are. Getting a couple billion dollars,

like children's hospitals and stuff, like a couple billion. I mean, we go through the list of people

who get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Sometimes it's it's not exactly

the criteria that you're making it out to. Right. But the last part of that, first of all,

I disagree with all of that. I think she got a 100%

because she's a donor. But that's okay. But I mean, you guys are staking her

so much ground on we love veterans, etc. And then when he makes it seem

like the Medal of Honor is no big deal. - Oh, it's a disaster for you, isn't it?

- I'm happy to go through it. I actually don't know exactly what he

said, so yeah, I'm happy to respond to it. So I want to pivot to VP picks because, you know, it does appear that JD Vance was

a bit of a risky pick for Donald Trump. And I get why he chose JD Vance. I get the strategy behind it,

trying to appeal to the Rust Belt voters. And also Trump was more confident thinking

that he's running against Joe Biden. Do you think now, in retrospect,

Trump made a bad decision? I think it was a great decision. I think that he was maybe expecting

a little bit of a honeymoon as a VP, and he received a hurricane. He unearthed some, you know,

clips from my show and others about the childless cat stuff,

which we could talk about, but I think there's more interesting stuff to discuss. But yeah, I mean, the last couple of weeks

I think he's been on point. He went on the Sunday news show

to his great credit, and thank you pressed me on the donor thing. I'll press you on one thing. You say that Kamala

didn't do a sit down interview because she didn't get her economic plan. I mean, she is the sitting VP.

She could take some questions, right? - You know.

- I totally agree. I mean, you got it. She should have been doing the interviews,

even if she didn't have all that stuff ready to go. Because you got to talk to you.

Got to talk to the press. You're totally right. Even if you don't have

your plans together. But to Jade's credit, he sat down

with three Sunday shows on one day and I thought he handled it masterfully. I thought he handled it beautifully. I could tell you what I'm hearing

from Republicans that don't love Trump, because there are Republicans

out there that don't love Trump. JD Vance is a very sophisticated, smart

and appealing candidate to many of them that are making it more even comfortable

to vote for Trump right now. And yeah, look, we're going to see

what ends up happening. We've had a lot of coverage

around both VP's. I think Wallace was an awful choice. I think Shapiro

would have been far better. I'd love to get your thoughts on that. Just looking at it from a Pennsylvania

standpoint, we were like, do not please don't pick Shapiro,

please don't pick Shapiro. And, anyway, and I'm sure you guys

feel the same about Vance, right? You were like, please pick somebody else

or pick Rubio or whatever. I. Thought. But. Vance was an interesting choice. It's a regional pick. Where? Definitely in the Rust Belt.

Let me also say this. You guys have written books before

and published books. I'm sure JD Vance has said

JD Vance has sold over a million copies of his book since the VP.

Now, that's not about enrichment. It's about that's a million voters that

are coming in contact with your story. The Netflix special has been top five

since he's been announced. That is a way to communicate with voters

in an asymmetrical, you know, nontraditional way. What we find, though, is that VP picks

can hurt you more than they can help you. Sarah Palin. Right. So as time goes on,

I'm confident that J.D. Vance can now succeed

in the one remaining spotlight, which is the VP debate against walls. I think he's going to be able

to hold his own, for sure. Much has been made about his pretty

offensive comments about couples or women who don't have children. But the media hasn't dug into Vance

declaring himself a post-liberal conservative yet, and I think that's going to be a problem

for him because, I mean, he is rebuffing the notion of a liberal democracy. Well, or is he rebuffing neoliberalism?

I don't know. That is something entirely different.

No, I don't think so. So maybe that's what he's rebuffing. No, I mean, but post liberal conservatives

is not about neo liberalism. Putting words in his mouth. But he at. Least he hangs out with

the what's the name? Yarvin. Yeah. I've debated with him on my show because

he wants something that I don't want. But neoliberalism, as you all know,

is unfettered free trade, adventurous foreign wars and, you know,

very, very aggressive international policy and also mass immigration. JD Vance definitely disagrees

with all three of those things. I your question is

what as people dive into that, I just. Want to know if you believe that he is

in line with the Curtis Yarvin's who do not believe in our democracy. First of all, no, I don't. I mean, I talked to Curtis Yarvin

and I disagree with him. You could talk to people all the time. JD Vance, his record is

very clear and I don't want to, like, get too down in this rabbit hole. But to understand what he said

about the childless cat women was that he was saying that when you have children, that your society is better governed,

when your leaders are having children, when they're not otherwise,

when they're not having children. I think you guys can

agree with that, right? No, I don't I don't

think that's true at all. - I mean, when I look.

- So can I just ask a hypothetical? Hold on. Let me see. Childless people

and 50 people with families. Which group of people

would make better decisions for the country in the next hundred years? I think that it is. It is totally wrong

to assume that you don't. Think that that having children

makes any bearing on your politics. No, no I don't. I don't think it does something to you

where it like you think about the next generation and I think about the. Next generation all the time.

And I don't have children. Okay. That's fine. I think about educating our kids. I'm worried about the fact

that so many children in America are illiterate and cannot read. I think about the future of this country

all day, every day. Right. Like, I don't think having children is

like the end all be all of whether or not you care about the future of this country. - I love this.

- Country. I want you to be able to have kids.

I don't wanna make this about you on it. I have a lot of respect for you,

but I can tell you, as someone who has had kids and has not had kids,

it does profoundly, deeply change you. Yeah, it changes your politics.

It changes everything. And that's what J.D. Vance was saying, is that when a society

starts having children, it starts to throw off the wiring

of the multi-generational framing of how public policy decisions can be made. We're not going to agree on that,

but I think it's rather common sense that when a society seeks to have

children, the society ceases to exist. Okay. So I'm going to answer that. Sorry. And I want to ask you

about Tim Walz in a second. But I want to let our linear

audience know, like if you're watching on Samsung, Roku, all those places where we're going

to continue, we're going to have speeches, we're going to have more interviews. Titcomb so now it's in the show

is embedded on the home page of Titcomb, so you can keep

watching there all day, every day. Okay, so now Charlie. Yes. So number one, look,

everybody has a different experience. So I have kids, and I have the same exact

way of thinking about things before the kids and after the kids. So it's so interesting. Having kids

didn't change your politics at all. Not once. Or your worldview. - Not 1%?

- No. I can vouch for that. Having kids didn't change, you know? I mean, I love my kids more

than you could possibly imagine. So you didn't you. Didn't learn something about humanity

or, like, how to pass values down or. Yeah. No, I've been thinking

about that all along. Oh, no. - We're.

- Not. That's a that's a that's incredible.

I'm not doubting it. But like you're wide and change.

Like why you fight so hard. - Yeah.

- No, it didn't at all. Yeah. Because I kind of view I mean,

this is really corny, but I view the audience and the voters

and the average American as family. Yeah.

And so I was already looking out for. So if this is a gruesome hypothetical,

but if a shooter came in and would you defend your kids first

or a stranger's kids or are they the same? So, I mean, first of all, that's not going

to change your opinion on health care. It's not going to change. I mean. - You defend your.

- Kids first, right? But of course you're going

to defend your kids. But that's the point is

that you have an attachment to your kids. So it has changed you. - So of course you have.

- An attachment to your own kids. Of course. Well, that's of course

I attack them first, right? No no no, no. But it doesn't change my

view on the world, on humanity, on politics, on policy. I mean, I guess. But if you're if somebody

if there's a shooter, of course I'm going to cover my kids first, I get it. But by the way, like in the scenario. But I wouldn't say, hey, my mom,

other people's kids to protect my. No, no, I don't believe that. But my politics is all

about protecting my kids, so. Okay. That's the difference. Hold on. - And actually, that goes to show that.

- Protecting. Everyone. Right.

And so but that goes to the core, Charlie. But that's why this is such

an interesting conversation between conservatives and progressives. Because progressive ideology

is help someone you don't know. Including non-American citizens. So, I mean, generally speaking,

I want to help the whole world. But of course, you take care of, you know,

you've got these circles that, you know, you've got your family, circles, nation. - Etc., when people don't.

- Have. My point is, you guys circle the wagons

and we think about everybody. In a way that's empathetic. But this is the problem is abstractions

like that is how we end up invading Iraq and forget that our veterans are starving

because we worry more about foreign adventures than the immediate. And so that was that was for the military

industrial complex and the oil companies. - But that wasn't for us or our kids.

- Look at Lindsey Graham. People like that that have like,

very weird personal lives. They tend to not care as much

about the immediate. They care much more about

the foreign and the abstract. But I, I just I'm curious, though,

that you don't think that family formation necessarily creates better politics. - I actually not at all.

- I want to ask you something. So it's what you believe, right? No, sorry. I don't mean to talk. It's okay. Put that aside for a second. What? You personally believe that aside. And think about optics

and political strategy. Do you at least concede that, politically

speaking, when it comes to optics, it is not advantageous

to accuse childless people in America of not caring about the future of the country

because they don't have kids? Like that is an incredibly people

are people find that offensive, right? It's also a very pro-family sentiment

to say that family. No, I yeah, I mean I.

That's also an accusation, right. Like the idea that if you don't have your

own kids, you don't care about family. Like. Well, I'm not saying

that I'm what you're asking me. Is it smart politics? What he said was a couple years ago,

before he was the VP. And I think that's important because first of all,

even before he was a Senate candidate. But even if he said it today, I would

defend the essence of what he was saying, which is that when you have

a group of people that are not attached, their their their public policy decisions

are not immediately impacting the things that they cherish the most. And it's much more distant and much more

detached and much more foreign than public policy feels much more like playing risk

than actually managing your home. And I think that's a big mistake. Conservatism at its best is trying to say,

forget the abstractions, what's happening in the neighborhood, what's happening at

church, what's happening with the family. But yeah, look, I, I share J.D.

Vance's view on these things. Yeah. So I'll say one last thing

that I want to ask you about walls. Because you asked me about walls. So, look, I wrote a lot about this in my

book, actually, justice is coming. Because I that's my main thesis on the

difference between the left and the right, that the right is not indecent. A lot of people on the left think,

oh, they're immoral, they're bad. And of course the right thing

said about the left, etc.. No. The right wing can be wonderful,

but they have tighter wagons, right? But do you understand that, though?

Do you know where that comes from? Yeah, I totally get where it comes from. And I get the energy where it's like,

I want to save the entire world. I'm like, okay, but like,

how about you try to not have 70 shootings a weekend in Chicago before you tell me

you're going to fight climate change? - Well, I say.

- We can kind of see that, right? - No, no, I definitely see.

- But we can definitely do both, Charlie. - It's not either.

- Or. Let's stop the shootings. Yeah, well, look,

I would love to stop the shootings. We're obsessed with them

stopping the shootings, right? Both in Chicago

and the mass shootings and all of that. And they're us populists,

right wing and left wing. Agree. Because we say, like,

why are we spending money in Israel? Or you would say Ukraine, right? When and Israel has universal health care,

they have paid family leave. They have all these things that we would

love and we don't have economic policy. Yeah. And so. Well we can disagree about that. So I got you there. No, I don't know. No deportations. No. Yeah I that's I would argue

that we got you on that. Israel is incredibly harsh

and cruel etc., on those things. But my point is, yeah, I get it. Take care of our families first before you

start dropping bombs in the Middle East. ET cetera. We agree. Yeah. And so there are gradations of it. But don't hate the others. You know, if they're outside

your wagons, they don't. They're not necessarily your enemies.

They. There just happened to be in a little bit

further circle away from you. And we're trying to as progressives,

we're trying to get you to empathize from outside with people outside your rights. But okay, so we've discussed that,

but I wanted to get back to Tim Walsh. Tim Walsh yeah. So you said, hey, you think

that it's hurt the Democrats? I think it's helped the Democrats

tremendously because he's he's done economically populist things,

and now they're championing economically populist things. And you said earlier

that's popular, right? - Housing prices, groceries, etc..

- Venezuela voted itself into slavery. So look, we can argue about the policies. And this has nothing to do with Venezuela

and I can prove that, etc.. No, but no, no, it's not price controls.

She did not. We're definitely against price controls.

So she did not. Propose what she proposed. She proposed.

I'll tell you that real quick then. Sarcastic. No no, no, not at all. So she said she's against price gouging

and left it vague. There's already laws

against price gouging. Like, for example,

in a natural disaster, in a hurricane, you can't charge $200 for water. So she's saying, hey,

I'm going to enforce those laws. By the way, she's not. Because first of all,

the price gouging happened in like 21, 22 and it's abated already. It's already actually gone down.

Second of all, she said grocery stores. That's the wrong target

is actually consumer goods that were doing the gouging, not the grocery stores. Right. All this indicates

she doesn't really mean it. And she's not even going to do it,

even if we wanted her to do it right. And but she definitely

did not say price controls. And none of those policies

are price controls. If she said price controls,

I guarantee you I would say wrong. That is the wrong policy. Okay, did a segment where we spoke out

against the idea of price controls. And I mean, we have fairly recent history

to reference, like what happened in the 1970s with price controls and how that led

to a disastrous economic situation. So we're not in favor of that. However, there are some policies

that she was specific about, especially as it pertains to housing. For instance, Kamala Harris has proposed

laws that would ban private equity firms from purchasing up single family homes. Right. Which has driven

up the the price of homes. And what's really interesting is,

again, going back to Donald Trump, what really worked for him in 2016 was similar. Economic messaging is now something

that he's speaking out against because Kamala Harris is proposing. - Well, really.

- So really interesting dynamic. The the Blackrock thing. I agree with black Blackstone

or black voters too. Yeah. Should not be able to buy

single family homes at least. Oh good. That's great agreement. I've said it repeatedly. Same with foreign countries

coming in and purchasing. Oh, here. Here. Okay. You have a country of ownership,

not renting. As far as the $25,000 per home,

not a great idea. - That will only boost the price of homes.

- I agree with you on that. It's not a great. We need more inventory. Yes, we need more inventory.

So you have to deregulate. You also have to you have

to lower the price of energy, which brings up the price of everything. And you guys aren't going to like that. But that includes drill, baby drill

and bringing down the price of oil and natural gas during this window where

we want to try to have a housing boom. I think we need more nuclear energy. - I agree, nuclear.

- Is a great. We're already number one

in energy production. Energy producers, but we're also the top

energy exporters, which is a problem. Well, I think we should continue

to be an energy exporter. The price of oil is still too high

for too many people to get back down to 40 or $50 a barrel,

which, by the way, that you want to like, stick it to the oil and gas industry. Bring the price of oil down.

Their margins go down significantly. Secondly, what we're talking about

the private equity on board. For that. You should not have major firms

coming in and renting back. One fourth of all home purchases

in Q1 of this year were major, major asset management firms buying homes for

the mere purpose of outbidding Americans so they can rent them back. No, I mean, I have no disagreement there. Oil prices real quick. I mean, you talk about, yeah, we should

continue being the top oil exporters. Yes. That will and producing more

is going to lower the prices. But remember we're talking about

the OPEC cartel where other countries are part of this global market. And if Saudi Arabia decides, you know

what, we're going to withhold production because we want to make as much money

as possible from fossil fuels. They're going to do it.

I mean, they've done it before, of course. And the way by the way, the way

you prevent that is you flood the zone so you produce more oil

and then you become the new Saudi Arabia. So you get to determine

what the price of oil is. - So, so there's a lot of.

- Different ways to do that. I understand that philosophy.

And you also at the. Same time Iran,

which would then spike the price of oil. - We don't.

- Need to go to war in the Middle East. - To prevent the war with Iran.

- No, no, I know what you're saying. Yeah, because you go to. 150 a barrel

if you have war. Yeah. And that's what I'm scared to death

that they're going to go to war now on behalf of Israel. And then we're going to have

$150 gas prices. And so that's a very complicated issue

that a lot of things that drive supply and demand and oil. But but the but the reason that I'm not

in favor of like, for example, $30 billion in subsidies still to this day

for oil companies, oil and gas companies. Why why are we giving $30 billion

of taxpayer money, or are. They subsidies. A combination

of subsidies and tax credits. And so they don't need tax credits. They're the most profitable

corporations in the world. So can you explain in greater detail is

that for start up costs? Is that because I've heard

lots of mixed opinions on it, it's easy to say $30 billion. - What specifically is that?

- Yeah. So they have about $15 billion

to incentivize production. And yeah. - Do you think.

- We should get rid of that? Yeah, because they don't need it. They already have trillions of dollars

in incentives to do production, to do distribution, to do all of those. Things on that. What's the second part? But but no, wait, Charlie,

you can't disagree on that. Capitalism is about profit maximization.

And they maximize profit. They they do it really, really well. We don't need to give them

our money on top for sure. But the thought process was we'd

rather have our explorers, our producers explore then Qatar or Saudi Arabia. Right. So we want to try

to make it easier to drill here. And offering tax benefits in

the production side creates American jobs. No, no American financing. The oil and gas is already under our soil.

So when the gas. But it's very capital intensive,

as you well know. And there's no guarantee when you drill,

you're going to have your profits back in the next 8 to 10 years. Yeah, but there's no guarantee

I'm going to get profits at tight. And they're not subsidizing me

$30 billion a year. With all due respect, though,

tight doesn't keep the entire American economy going. Well, agree to disagree. Well, okay. Fair enough.

So. But let me ask you though. So to be consistent, though, I say yes,

you know, subsidies for oil and natural gas because it's 70, 80% of our energy. You would say though? Yes, subsidies for solar panels

and wind and for electric vehicles. So the subsidies are only for nascent

industries when there's an overall need to get that industry up and off the ground,

up and running for national security reasons, do you think that. - Solar panels are nascent.

- At this point? I think they're on the edge

of nascent still electric vehicles. Yeah. Well, now you can make an argument

that they are not. Right, right. And so, see,

those are good conversations to have. Right? Right, exactly. But for the oil subsidies,

a lot of them are 100 years old. No, industry is not a nascent industry.

And yes, we do care about climate change. And yes, fossil fuel is

destroying the planet. So yeah, so that's the thing we. Disagree with though,

is the other 15 billion of what. So production, which is all American jobs.

But the second part. - Yes.

- And then distribution, which is crazy. - I mean.

- How do we subsidize. So look, you'd have to get into all

the details of a thousand, like, not a thousand, but literally dozens

of laws that are some are left from 100 years ago, some are recent, etc.. But Charlie, these are all

funneled money back to their donors. Like we get into all these wars

because the defense contractors, people think it's mainly because of Israel. No, it's mainly because

of the defense contractors. - And when we do.

- Or defense. Contractors. So I'm saying all the subsidies we do,

subsidies for all of these different types of donors. If you have a principle of we don't want

subsidies for oil and gas, that's fine. It's $30 billion in a $6 trillion budget.

The defense budgets $1 trillion a year. - Right.

- Oh my God, let's. Hey. That's interesting. So do you think we could pare down

the defense budget? Of course. Okay, good good, good. I've said that consistently. Okay, good. I mean, by the way, why do we have

troops still in Iraq and Syria? It doesn't make any sense. - Yeah, I hear you on.

- Syria, but I. So, yeah. And, you know, they can't account

for half their budget. It's an outrage. We spent $200 billion

on this Ukrainian war effort, which was one of the biggest mistakes, I think, in

American foreign policy in recent memory. So I want to end on the last couple

things, especially on agreement. But before we get to the agreement,

I did mention walls and economically populist, Conference, policies

that that led to this conversation. Do you see why we think

that's a good conversation for us? I also I mean, I guess I mean,

we look at it completely different. Again, immigration is a hot button issue

that Democrats tend to not win on right now. He did give taxpayer funded tuition

for illegals in the state of Minnesota. Secondly, he has no restrictions

on abortion whatsoever, which there's some horrific stories

that have come out because of that. So it reenters abortion as being

a little bit murkier because right now it's a political winner for Democrats,

and it's a little bit murkier for Democrats with no restrictions at all. That is not popular

with the American people. Just like my position of no, abortion

is not popular with the American people, and I'm willing to admit that. - Yeah, hold on though.

- No, no. I just want him to finish. Okay. When it comes to the abortion issue

and no restrictions at all, which, by the way, is not realistic. My view happen anytime soon. Doesn't work. Yeah. My view on it is I'm against a late

term abortion of a healthy pregnancy. However, I want to ask you for saying,

do you believe? Do you genuinely believe that women

who get pregnant want to remain pregnant, go through the hormonal changes,

go through the body changes, go through the torture of being pregnant,

and then decide, like literally in the last week,

oh, I think I'm going to have an abortion. - That's a great.

- Question. So instead of an abortion,

they should be given a cesarean section. But that's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you,

do you genuinely believe that women. First of all, the numbers show that there

are a couple thousand late term abortions every year, but it's healthy, tiny. Healthy pregnancies. Well, that that healthy

is very difficult to ascertain. Interesting. Because because, for example,

if you have pre-eclampsia, you're technically not a healthy pregnancy. But one out of three pregnancies

in America is pre-eclamptic. You can easily deliver a baby via cesarean

section if you're pre-eclamptic. What percentage of those

couple thousand late term abortions are done due to that condition? I don't I don't know the number, but the

point is that instead of aborting the baby, which is not medically necessary. You can still deliver the baby.

That's the argument. Against Wade, right? Like Roe v Wade was first two trimesters.

That's Kamala Harris's policy. The third trimester.

You do not have a right. But but nine. States, no,

nine states do have no restrictions. New Mexico, Colorado

Oregon, Minnesota I agree with Roe. I agree with you there. And that's a that's a

that's a step in the right direction. And that's why I say Walz brings that back

into a place where he has no restrictions whatsoever in Minnesota,

which is where you guys are in you. So that's where the final point on

the Walz thing, though, is the Floyd stuff and the mismanagement of the riots. And he did wait 24 hours

to deploy the National Guard. There was a lot of suspicion around there. A lot of people think of Minneapolis

as a burning, looted city in their recent memory, and he has to answer for that. And his answers have been clumsy. And his wife has had this weird clip

where she's like, I smelled the tires and I rolled down my window,

like very strange stuff. And so looking as an outsider,

as a conservative, we see this as like an all you can eat buffet line

of very radical, unpopular positions that have now been introduced to the ticket. Yeah. So I can debate every one of those

with you, but I think that the country is talking more about his

economically populist positions, and that's winning ground for us and not. Well that's interesting.

It might win ground with younger voters. The question is, will it win win

ground with baby boomers, who tend to be very skeptical of heavy

handed big government economic policies. And I don't I don't think so.

I don't think so. When they hear price gouging

or as it's portrayed, price controls, that's like no go for baby boomer voters,

which interestingly, Joe Biden was doing better with. And maybe now Donald Trump

stands to gain from that. But younger voters, I agree with you. A 25 year old voter will be,

oh yeah, give me free stuff. Like, yeah, give me a house or, you know,

make it easier for me to buy a house. - A of course that's more attractive.

- So yeah. So again, I could debate all

all of like the framing etc.. And I look Trump didn't call out

the National Guard on the Floyd issues and on on the. And they're not saying

give us a free house and you agree with some of their policy proposals. Yeah, yeah. Free stuff socialism. But also like make it easier

to buy a house, right? Sounds so. - Of course.

- It is. Okay. So that's look, I love that. I think that's a huge win for us. - And I think it's.

- Economically good for the country. - Of course.

- Not. Okay.

So but let's end on agreement if we can. - Right.

- We can try our best. Okay. Now I know we already agree on this. I want to see what we

can do about it, Charlie. And I want it to be real. Right. So post-election, because pre-election,

nothing's going to happen, right? But whether Kamala Harris wins

or Donald Trump wins, you don't want private equity buying up our homes. I don't we don't want private equity

buying up our homes. And I think that's actually quickly going

to be the number one issue in the country. Whenever I go and talk to real people that

are not in politics, they're like, oh, God damn it, the housing prices, right? And the American dream

is slipping away from all of us. So is there a way that we can work

from populist right and populist left on this critical issue of pressure,

either the Democratic or Republican president to actually deliver on this. I think it's a very simple bill. If you have assets under management,

over $100 billion, you should not be able to buy

single family homes. 100 billion sounds. It's actually not that much

in the private equity. We're talking about $10 trillion in black

just so we're clear like 100 x that because some people say,

oh, make it 10 billion. Like you got to have the line where you

can still, you know, have appetite there. But you think about it, what's happening. And I will say housing prices

aren't only going up because of that. You're flooding the zone

with a lot of cheap money. And so money needs to find a home. And then you have one off investors

that aren't Blackrock and that aren't Blackstone,

that are also bundling homes three, four, five homes because they need to try

to find a home for their they need to try to find a place for their capital. But yes, I would love to see some

agreement and I would work with anybody on that because the I my heart

is not to have a nation of renters. I think when people own property.

So that's another. So we get one of the family thing. If you have 50 people that own property

or 50 people that don't own property, I think we all agree the 50 people

that own property up there better they have better politics. Do we agree? Or at least they're

better citizens either. No, no, but I want them to own homes. No, no, Charlie. They are. - They have skin in the game.

- No, no, they do have. More skin in the game. That is true. - No, no, guys.

- But they've poured their entire life. Savings. I've been a renter. I've been a renter. I've been a homeowner. - None of my policies changed.

- Nothing. You never changed. No. He's just.

No, no, no, it's not that I never changed. And I in fact, when I do change, I tell

people, I go, hey, listen, I was convinced of x, Y, or Z, but for policy reasons, not

because I personally went through this. I don't know if I think that owning a home

you care more about property taxes. That's definitely true. Right. You care more about the crime

in your neighborhood and if it impacts. Right? Do you agree? No, no. I was a renter twice,

and I moved out because there was literally blood by my doorstep. So I cared about security.

I didn't want to die. Don't you think you take better care of,

say, unit if you own it versus you rent it? Yes. Sure. Yeah. Those there's details like that. - It does.

- Change. And around the property,

but not necessarily about policy. I know, but then policy that says

you get a tax deduction for home improvement, which you do. Yeah. And so we can debate that. But I keep going. I'm trying to say though,

that the deeper point that owning property makes a better country. And renting I think creates very cynical,

radical, nihilistic people. Because here's the point we can. Agree on because because let me the

final point is not debatable, is that if you're paying all of your money for rent, that disappears

and doesn't go into an equity bank, then you're very bitter after ten years. - Yeah, I agree with you on that.

- Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. So whether it's the bitterness or not,

the most important thing is you're not building wealth. Exactly. And it's not your asset. You're you're paying out rent

instead of bringing in assets. The entire political project.

That's my point. - Yes.

- And you become indentured servants. Right. You become serfs. Right. And then you view the world

as you're like. Nothing works for me. It's all rigged. And I think when you own a home,

you're like, well, at least I'm working my tail off. With that $400 of my mortgage payment

is still just kind of going in the piggy bank. One day I can access that equity. So yes, I think we should do everything

we can to increase homeownership. I would like to do it

in market based principles. In addition, we should not all of a sudden

have a couple billionaire oligarchs come in and steal away the American dream

from the next generation's young people? Yeah. Ironically, you know, you asked me

famously and we talked about it last time, you know, how you or you said you

live like a capitalist every day, right? And so the irony of that is that I'm a

capitalist and I see you live like a cat. I live like a capitalist. Every day, owning homes

and flipping them and renting them. - Back.

- No, definitely not doing okay. But so my point though, there is

that in order to protect capitalism in the free markets, I'm not going to I'm going

to agree with market based ideas and, and but our real enemy is corporatism. Yeah. Corporatism then says

we don't want a free market. We want monopolies.

We want control over your system, right? Would you agree? Corporatism.

And also government regulators. Government policy that hurts

the small from achieving something big. Of course, of course. Yeah. So we have agreement there. Yeah. All right. So we hope that whoever wins,

we'll all unite together to very. Clear that I think that

that Harris has a very she has a slight odd odds right now to win. Yeah. All right. There you go.

Another honest conversation I love it. Charlie, thank you for joining us

from Turning Point USA. Talk to you soon. Yeah, we appreciate it, brother. Thanks. Thanks for watching The Young Turks.

Really appreciate it. Another way to show support

is through YouTube memberships. You'll get to interact with us more.

There's live chat emojis, badges. You've got emojis of me

Anna John Jr. So those are super fun. But you also get playback

of our exclusive member only shows and specials right after they air. So all of that, all you got

to do is click that join button right underneath the video. Thank you.