Charlie Kirk Challenges University of Florida Students on White Privilege, Hitler Comparisons, and Government Spending

America's small businesses rely on Tik Tok to succeed, helping them attract more customers and drive more growth. 74% of businesses on Tik Tok say it's helped them scale. Like Coco Asante, who upgraded to a larger facility and brought on more staff, letting their handcrafted chocolates reach more customers. You can learn more at tik toke economic impact.com. [Music] How we doing, University of Florida? It's a great turnout. It's great to see you guys. You know how it works. We're going to just be here for a little while. Open mic, whatever's on your mind. And uh come prepared. And feels good to win, doesn't it? Feels good to win. And if you make a really good point, you'll get one of these beautiful hats. Or I might just throw one to you anyway. But uh great to be here everybody and uh we're going to do some questions and this is what free speech is all about. Let's get started. Thanks guys. >> Hello. You are the the first question. Nice to meet you. >> Hello uh Charlie. My name is Tracy. Uh first of all, I want to thank you for an opportunity to speak on your platform. Um I want to let you know that I do not support you. I do not oppose you. I am neutral. I'm simply here just to ask a question. >> Sure. >> Um what is your take on white privilege? define the term. >> White privilege is a phenomenon where white people benefit from being white. >> Yes. I don't think people can hear you, but there's >> I can uh white privilege is a phenomenon where white people benefit from being white. >> Got it. Okay. So, do you want to further explain it or would you like me to respond? >> Uh, what would you prefer me to do? >> Okay, fine. How about this? Uh, what can I as a white person do that you as a black person can't do? I think the question is posed in a manner that does not highlight white privilege. Um, white privilege is not that >> that's why I asked I want to go on your term, not my term. Right. >> Right. Right. I'm trying to I'm trying to explain. So, um, white privilege is in in the out in the opportunities. So, you and I, not you and I as Charlie because obviously you have more opportunity than me because you have a platform, but any other any other regular person um, white privilege is not in the opportunities because we have the same opportunities. White privilege is in the outcomes of the opportunities. Me and my white counterpart may have the same opportunity to get the same job. However, whites are hired at triple the rate and blacks for the same position with equal in qualifying credentials. Is it easier for a white person or a black person to get into college? >> Can I um that's very subjective and arbitrary. I would tell you for me going to college was difficult from uh just based on from what I came from and my background. >> Right. So the standards for a black person are lower than for a white person. >> Correct. >> That's affirmative action. So wouldn't that be like black privilege, not white privilege? >> No. Affirmative action was created because >> not not why it's created, but answer the question. Isn't it easier for a black individual to get in University of Florida than a white >> understand? We could talk the context. Just answer the question. Is it easier for a black person or white person with test scores to get in the University of Florida? >> Um I'm not sure. Like I said, that's that's that's subjective and arbitrary. What I wanted to say about affirmative action, it was created because same thing with DI was. It was created because people of of color who qualified to go in these universities were denied simply because of their skin tone, which is why they created affirmative action. It is disingenuous to >> that's why we created the Civil Rights Act, not the Affirmative Action. So those are three different things, right? Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, DEI, three different things. Civil Rights Act, we agree no one should be discriminated based on the color of their skin. Affirmative action is something different. from action is that we're going to lower the standards to get more of a skin color just because we think they're not represented enough. DEI is a further extension of that. >> Understood. >> So let let me kind of ask the question again. So the baked into the idea of white privilege is that inherently in our culture of society, somebody that has white skin color in this audience has extra privileges that you as a black individual do not have. Can you list what those are? >> Um sure. Um when uh FDR uh employed the um uh New Deal to counteract the Great Depression, um this came with resources that was eluded allowed it to uh white people. Um banks denied 99% of qualified black applicants while also accepting 99% of white applicants. >> Today and 2025, >> okay? Uh today in 2025, as I alluded to you, they've done the studies in psychology where white sounded names receive jobs or call backs more than black sounded names. They did the two names. It was a white young lady named Anna Scott and it was a black young lady named Lakesha Washington. They both put in 80 job applications. Lakesha Washington received nine call backs and rece um and received 75 calls out of 80. >> That's a good point. I I actually that study is debated but let's pretend it's true. Do you think it's racism or something else? >> I think there that answer is multiaceted >> because it's let me let me make the best sorry to interrupt you. If we live under a status of DEI and people are getting jobs that they're not qualified for, wouldn't that an applicant then assume maybe that an applicant might be there based on DEI not on merit? It actually creates more racism where it doesn't exist. >> So DEI is not about going and grabbing some random person of color and saying you therefore qualified. DEI is about considering other qualified applicants. >> Well, so that's so let's just let's take airline pilots. United Airlines wants 40% all of their airline pilots to be women or people of color. Why does that matter? Number one, because I want a qualified airline pilot, not a person of color airline pilot. >> Understood? >> So, you agree? But number two, there's only so many airline pilots jobs. So, when you say we want 40% by definition, then you have to discriminate against a certain group to get another group to advance, right? >> Uh, understood. because there's not unlimited amounts of spots for airline pilots or air traffic control or surgeons or whatever position. So when you say that we want to have a quota that then you have to say we're not going to prioritize a certain group. Let me tell you what I believe and maybe you might actually agree with it because I think you do. What we believe as conservatives is that skin color really doesn't matter that much. We care about character and merit. We want a country built on what you bring to the table, not how you look. >> Exactly. And America started out with that based on merit and theoretically it was supposed to work. In practice it did not which is why you have these different programs of affirmative action DEI and the civil rights act because they were not working. You cannot ignore that this is these uh policies were created to counteract racism. A counteract to racism is not racism in itself. >> Well first first for I I I reject the premise and I I I will say this. If you do something racist on top of something racist, that doesn't make the second racist action good. Because if you discriminate against white people to say that we're fighting racism, then that's not a good idea. But instead, I think you can agree that when we build a society like college admissions or job applications, we should say no quotas and just merit. You agree? >> I agree for uh >> then you're against DEI because DEI says quotas. >> Yeah. Let me finish. I agree to a certain extent. So, when you mention about um discriminating against whites, of course, I don't agree with that. Um >> well, that is DEI, just so we're clear, >> right? And I I'm gonna say it again. DEI was created to offset racism. We left it up to majority of white America to include people of color or qualifying credentials. They would not. So, if you're my argument is that you're saying it's reverse racism. My argument is that it needed to be there to counteract racism. Sounds like we need to find a different solution for both parties. >> I have a great solution. Stop talking about race all the time. >> Race doesn't mean anything. because I look at you not as a black guy, but as a human being made in the image of God. And I want to know what you bring to the table. Are you good at the job? Are are you better than your competitor? Because let me just like pause for a second. I just want you to hear out what we believe is that when you talk about race all the time, you start to resegregate society based on tribes and you lose this idea of e- plurabus unum all made in the image of God out of many one. And yes, we have made many mistakes in our past, but we were getting closer as a country in my childhood as being not obsessed with race. We've become more race obsessed over the last 10 years, especially the last 5 years, which is why we're seeing the anti-Dei movement, which actually ends up hurting people of color more than previously. And I and the the the I guess the biggest question though is that why should race matter at all? Shouldn't we just deemphasize it? >> Uh what I wanted to first um respond to was uh the notion of stop talking about race. Um I don't agree with that notion for the simple fact that um talking about things bring awareness. Awareness leads to actions. Actions produce change results. I I just want to use your logic and slip it on you. Imagine if you had cancer and your doctor was like, "Let's just stop talking about it. It wouldn't in the same context that racism wouldn't go away. Cancer wouldn't go away. >> Let's accept that >> practice. Not not >> Do you think racism is a top 100 problem in America?" >> I think it is. Um, I haven't considered the other 99 to give a throw. >> Crime, fathers not being around, obesity, suicide, mental health issues, anxiety, cost of college, an open border, Russian Ukrainian war, nuclear proliferation, artificial intelligence, the rise of China, like all that's probably more important than racism. So, >> I'm not saying it is or isn't, >> however, but No, no, I'm not. But I'm say use your premise. If I have cancer, that's the most important thing happening to me. >> Correct. >> Racism is not a cancer on America. Racism is sin and we'll never get rid of sin because we we are broken fallen creatures from our creator and we rebelled. >> So that you do not solve issues by not discussing them. If you and your wife have I'm not sure if you're married. If you and your wife have a disagreement with um communication and you tell her, "Hey, let's just stop talking about our problems." So problems do not disappear. >> I actually don't think it's an issue nearly as much as you do. I think we've made it a bigger issue. >> I'm not making it a bigger issue. I'm just discuss this is just my topic. >> No, I'm saying generally. But like let's just say and then I do want to get your definition though. What is racism? >> Racism is a form of feeling of superiority. It is um expressed through discrimination and through the legal system. >> Oh, fair enough. So So we we agree that's wrong and it's terrible. So we should get rid of practices that actively discriminate against anybody based on race. Can you be racist against white people? >> Can I or black people? >> No. Can a black person like yourself be racist against a white person? >> Absolutely. >> Okay, good. We agree. And you should be applauded for that because most pe some people on the left think you can't be racist against white people. Not all. >> Just to speak for black people um >> that's quite a statement but sure >> well let me let me speak for um the majority who who are of my opinion. So when um blacks um who let's say have disdain for whites, it is not based in racism. It is based in cause and effect. It is uh normal for anybody to hate a suppressor. It is normal for anybody to hate their rapist. It is normal for anybody to hate their murderers. Uh, America went to war with the British Empire for being um, suppressed and oppressed. So, my my concluding point is that we a lot of the hate that can be perceived from blacks is white is hating oppression. Not not not white people. Because if you substitute our oppression for a Mexican, if a Mexican oppresses us, we therefore hate him as well. If a black man oppresses us, we therefore hate we hate oppression. >> I think that's that's a fair point. Let me ask one final question if that's okay. If you had to decide which is a bigger problem facing black America, racism or a lack of fathers raising black kids, which is a bigger problem? >> Um, I would say what um what impact >> repeat the question. >> If you had to decide in a binary choice, which is a bigger problem facing black America, racism or a lack of fathers raising black youth? Um, I think it's a it's a combination of both, but um, for sure we'll say black because blackness affects blacks more than you ever affect me in my life. >> I'm sorry. So, you said you would say racism or or the black fathers? >> Fathers. >> I agree. So, now now we have agreement. Do you agree that the last 5 years we've talked more about racism and way less about dads staying around with the women they impregnate? Would you agree that's probably a problem? >> U, I agree that's a problem amongst all races. When you say we, who is we? >> Well, as a society, but it's especially a problem in black America. If you had to guess, I know this is like trivial pursuit, but approximate what percentage of black youth have a stable father around. >> I wouldn't know those numbers, sir. >> It's about 30%. So that means that two out of three black kids do not have a dad around. >> I would have to fact check that for myself. >> That's fine. You can look it up. >> Your uh your videos look it up on Grock or ChatGpt or Perplexity or the AI of your choice. Right. And so here's our perspective as conservatives because this is a color-blind truth. See, as conservatives, we apply things that are true to all human beings regardless of their skin color. That if you don't have a dad around, you're more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, more likely to basically be on the outer fringe of society. When two out of three black youth don't have dads around, that's a big big problem. And it creates a cycle of violence and poverty. That's not racism. That's culture. and the cultural problems happening in black America. The white people are not doing that to black. >> Can we not look at the sources of poverty? When I spoke about redlinining, that was literally whites forcing blacks into ghettos because they would not give us houses. >> No one's going to defend that ignore that. >> No one's going to defend that. But not ignore who created who created the ghettos. >> Let me ask a simple question. >> It's disingenuous. >> Well, hold on. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to leave the woman you impregnate. >> Correct. >> That does not transcend every racial group. I want an answer though because I'm curious. Why is it that so many black men leave the women that they impregnate more so than any other group? Why is that? Is that the white person's fault? >> No. >> So maybe the biggest problem facing black America is self-actualized, >> right? I'm not I'm not arguing what's the biggest and smallest problem. I was just asking you white supremist >> for sure. But what I'm arguing is that as a society, we had entire years of corporate apologizing, television advertisements, talking about racism in America, and zero attention saying, "Hey, dudes of all colors, don't impregnate women and abandon them cuz you're cowards." Why hasn't anybody ever said that? Cuz that actually would fix the country. >> What makes you think that hasn't been said amongst the black community? >> Can you I'm I'm a black father. It's It's been >> Well, thank you. Amazing. Can you point to a single black artist, rapper, or athlete that has said that in the last decade >> about specifically saying black fathers should be involved in their children's life? >> No. Saying don't abandon the women you impregnate. >> Oh, those they haven't said it in those words, but they do promote black family ties, which is essentially the same thing. >> I'm not trying to nitpick, but do you think most rappers promote staying with their family or not staying with the women that they impregnate? >> The rappers that I listen to, the JCO, the Kendrick Lamar, they preach family values. >> Okay. I I I'm not an expert in American rap, but if if if you American rap is promoting family values, then I guess I'll >> not in its full totality. You have different genres of rap, you know, you have gangster rap, u conscious rap, uh hip-hop, so forth and so on. But for the artists that I listen to, they absolutely promote promote those type of values that you promote. Um >> I'm I'm glad to hear that. I I >> I actually agree with many of your um conservative takes. I disagree with some as well. That's just because I think for myself. I we we agree on a lot. We disagree on some. I can say this that we both want a country based on merit and I think we should keep that as our ultimate goal and purpose. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah. >> Got my phone. >> Yes. >> I need to get to classy so I can jump in front of it. >> Hey, nice to meet you, Charlie. >> I'll tell you what, wearing a blazer was a wrong decision today. Man, I am hot. Um >> we are in the swamp, right? >> Yeah. Right. Um I'm actually an instructor in history. I teach at the college level and um I have a lot of um my coverage my main area is um World War I and World War II. And I really hate it when I'm teaching those classes and then we have a political discussion and students immediately go to the fascistic kind of like Hitler comparison. But that's my question that I have for you. At what point have you see the development of what's happening currently right now to Trump's rise to power um his progression to getting his second term compared to Vimar Germany during the in war period because there's a lot of correlations there and this isn't propaganda. I can give you list after list after list from an objective point of view because I'm sure you consider yourself to be an historian like you're I've seen you in videos before doing very well interacting with the literature and if that's the case in history if you're asking a question testing a theory or filling in a gap asking that question shouldn't be as controversial as it should be especially if you're looking from objective means >> okay um fair question do you also and I will answer the question but do you also correlate President Trump's rise to second power to Winston Churchill's No, I wouldn't. >> But they have way more in common than the Weimar Germany one. And you're a historian, professor. You know that, right? Well, think about it. Donald Trump was put in exile. So is Churchill after the Darnell. You know about the Darnell's because you're a professor, right? >> You do? >> Mhm. >> Okay. Can you tell me about the Darnell? >> I would rather focus primarily on >> If you're a World War I professor and you don't know about the Darnell's No, no, but this is important because everyone says this is what you're paying for, everybody. Um because it's it's and it's interesting they say well the similarities between Weimar Germany and and Trump okay but Church Hill and Trump had a lot of similarities in their rise to power. So did Thatcher and Trump. The point being is there's a lot of European examples you can point to. However, I will concretely answer the question. They have huge things that they disagree on and that there were big differences. Was Hitler pro- free speech or anti-free speech? >> Um, he wasn't necessarily pro- free speech, especially when he got towards the end of the five more republic. >> Yeah. I mean, he would imprison journalists and, you know, put his political opponents in jail. And so, I guess the question is, has Donald Trump been pro- free speech or anti-ree? >> If I can give you some comparisons that I would necessarily see. I mean, if you look at uh you have a populist movement, right? You have uh someone who is very has a cult of personality, a fantastic know a very effective rhetoric. If you look at the assassination attempts that were on Hitler and on Trump. If you look at even the iconography that you have within the MAGA hats, you have a white lettering on a red background. If you even go even further, >> I got another one. You forgot. >> Uh did did you know that Hitler had a dog? >> No. No. So, so the very nature of history is seen in level of comparison of analysis. Once again, I'm not >> Oh my goodness. Hitler was also a vegetarian. So vegetarians are also likely to kill their whole population. >> If I could give you another example um and because after my question I would like to ask this is >> such a sloppy analysis and you know it >> because I'm trying to step piece at a time to ask you because the question isn't a def definitive. You're trying to build an argument which is the very nature of it and to sit down and observe and ask these questions because it tends to get to the right that there's this accusation that certain comparisons aren't allowed on the left. So, I'm asking you like in a high level of integrity, do you see these comparisons? Not to call uh Trump Hitler. That's not what I'm trying to do. What I'm trying to ask is if you're saying down paying attention, at what point would you say maybe you're starting to exceed the level of someone who's trying to act as a liberator to getting to the point of the death spot? Well, well, first of all, I think the entire premise is wrong. You cannot draw a linear connection with every figure of history to the moment of time. that first of all that's just an incredibly sloppy way of looking at things because then everything becomes Nazi Germany and everything is Hitlerian for example people are like oh Joe Biden is acting like Hitler which by the way he acted far more as an autocrat than Donald Trump ever would lockings of political opponents in jail one second instead you have to look at every moment in time its own context in its own perspective and I would say >> there are there's a lot more depth and richness of history than just what happened during the horrors of World War II as I mentioned Churchill's rise to power, Thatcher's rise to power, the Elizabeth, the Elizabethan period. I think that Donald Trump is much more like Justinian's reign or Marcus Aurelius than anything that you could connect to Donald Trump connect to Adolf Hitler. But at what point, that's a hypothetical and I refuse to answer hypotheticals, but I would have to throw it back at you. >> It's not a hypothetical. It's a factual comparison. >> No, you asked a hypothetical. You asked me hypothetically at what point would I draw a line? That is a hypothetical by definition. Professor >> a progression towards a conclusion of the the evidence that's presented. >> I I reject answering hypothetical. >> I'm trying to bring up the factual information or to get to allow me to answer have you answer a very specific question. Okay. Would you agree that Would you agree that there are creeping similarities between the Democrat party's seizure against free speech, their criminalization of political opponents to communist totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century? Two people can play this game. >> I would make a comparison to the to the the Biden's presidency as the old regime that fell apart before he had the rise of the populist figure that was there. I would shift this slightly to get away from the comparison to Hitler. Could you compare America currently right now to the in war period Vimmore Republic where you had hyperinflation, devaluation of the fiat money? You had people who were suffering when it came to the purchasing power of their labor. It got to the point that even Germany, Berlin was the center of decadence and degeneration. Those conversations are being had right now. So I would even make the argument if you want to get away from the trigger word of Hitler that the economic, social and cultural environment the viral public had is very akin to what's happening right now. I think it's more similar to 1980 America. We had a terrible inep president by the name of Jimmy Carter or Joe Biden that that sleptw walk America into weakness and wokeness and a figure like Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump revitalized our country. I don't have to look to the Weimar Republic. We have 1980 to point to. That's way that's a way better example than and by the way there's also there's like 15 things wrong with your argument. Number one, Adolf Hitler. >> It's not an argument, it's a question. >> It sounds like an argument, but fine. I'll >> you're constructing it. >> The the embedded argument within your question is what's wrong with >> the question was is there comparable nature to now and why we're journey? I'll make one more sparingly and and >> I would remove from the 1980s if I could shift it from the 1980s where it's not the same similarities. >> Can I answer the differences? Cuz the similarities are one. I want to give you one more difference one no one more similarity between in a war period and now >> when it came to Hitler's rise in power you had the first constitutional republic in brimary Germany in which he later superseded with certain racial laws certain citizen laws there was a creation of an identifiable other in order to consolidate and coagulate the populist movement okay is that not happening right now with the same narrative that's happening with illegal immigrants >> well no because it's not based on any race it's whether or not you came into the country correctly and legal No, no, there were citizenship laws. There were the Reich citizenship laws in which they defined what a citizen was and what was not allowed to be part of the German population which is constitutionally committed. >> Got it. So, just to be clear, when Bill Clinton deported a bunch of people, he was also kind of acting similar to >> the national narrative right now. Right now, there's no question that >> No, but it it it let me just let me go at length a little bit. Thy argument for many reasons. >> I'm not making an argument. I'm making a comparison. such a sloppy comparison for many reasons. >> How is it a sloppy comparison? >> Because there's so many differences. Can I name some of the differences? >> History doesn't repeat. It rhymes. There's going to be similarities to it. Not the exact same. >> Well, but no, but my question to you are do you not recognize the similarities? I reject so many of your core premises largely because if you have any political leader in the west you could start to try to connect dots of what happened in the 1930s and 40s and then say well this is very similar to the inner war period and you know this guy's a >> that's history that's the study of history that's how you get a monograph published because what happens is I'm asking you for a comparison allow me to keep on because you're going on divigation I'm asking about currently right now America in compared to my republic and then you bring in other decades I I haven't even asked >> well because because to answer your question I think the similarities are so weak and pale such as saying well Hitler was >> yes saying like Hitler was a vegetarian Hitler had a dog but I would say the similarities between Trump's rise to power is much more like Churchill that >> populist movement yes or no >> no different than William Jennings Brian or Teddy Roosevelt I say Trump is more like Teddy Roosevelt than anything that happened in the in war period or Trump was more like Alexander Hamilton that is my argument yes >> is Is there an economic decline happening right now in America? Is there a promise for economic prosperity? Is there this promise that the desper makes that they need power in order to help humanity, but then they end up using it? I mean, there's been who was it? Anthony Auggle, one of the congressman that through the idea of changing the constitution to have a third term. I mean, doesn't that concern you for a second? >> Allow me to, but just what kind of death spot is Donald Trump? How many? >> Not yet. The question is the reason why you're observ. You shouldn't do this to your kids in class, by the way. You should let them get their arguments. >> No, ask questions. >> Interrupt them. Interrupt them if they're paying you to be here. Okay. >> But allow me to finish my argument if I can, which is without interruption, >> which is this, which is that if President Trump was really a despot, >> you you want to interrupt me so bad. >> I'm holding back for you. It was going to be a despot. What kind of a despot allows his opponents to criticize him, allows open and robust free speech and allows the continuation of the true fulfillment of liberal democracy? What kind of a death spot does that? >> It gets to the core of my first question. At what point does it go from liberator to despatism? That's my question. And the whole point of making the comparison is to provide that critical lens of interpretation of at what point would you go from celebrating Trump to being concerned that is going too far. Can I give you a scenario which kind of solidifies this for me? Um let's say all of a sudden you have a knock on your door at 2 in the morning. There's a family there, a mother, father, and two kids. They're illegal immigrants and they're asking you hide them because ICE is coming to get them. What's your response to that? >> I hand them over to ICE. >> Okay. You would hand them over to Ice. Okay. Right. >> How is that not different from the exact same narrative that was constructed during the reign of removing from German? >> Shame on you for for comparing deportation efforts to start with and the extermination efforts started with deportation. That is such a ridiculous. Not everything is the Holocaust. Not everything is Oshvitz. Let me tell you the core difference. Number one, >> you brought in the Holocaust. I did not. >> Number one, >> I did not bring in that extreme. You're the one who's taught unique extremes. I'm trying to >> No, you you did you did bring up the extreme. No, you you said, "How is it different?" Who brought it up? Me or him? >> No, no, no, no, no. I was mentioning deportations. The Jews were deported. >> Allow me to tell you how it is different. They broke the law to come here and we are enforcing the law. >> The Jews broke the citizen laws before they were deported as well. They were constitutionally committed. >> These laws have been on the books for well over 150 years that you cannot illegally enter. Constitution can be amended and shifted >> in in Weimar Germany. They created new ridiculous arbitrary evil laws to go after another. They were still these are old laws that are reapplied to our times. I wanted to ask one final question cuz I know you have to get to class. >> Yeah, I do. >> And you and and you are a professor, right? >> Um what is a woman? [Applause] Um, in all honesty and response, I mean, anyone who's biologically a woman that has the gentility of a woman who can be a mother. Okay, good. So, and this this is what here's what I enjoyed this conversation. I very much appreciate it. But it's a little bit of a disappointment and I'll tell you why. Because I'm not an ideologue. I would really like to step back and observe what is happening now to read the times. And as a historian, my training is to look back at some period. It may be tunnel vision because my areas of expertise happens to be the inner war period but I can't help but find similarities and when I come ask you what do you think about the similarities immediately you push me to the extreme you're wanting to promote dialogue here but when it comes to like asking an honest question asking to almost like provide a critical exposition of it is kind of like now it gets to the point that the conversation >> no I mean look I'll be honest like I asked you a very simple question about inter war period you don't know what the darnell's is with churchill and so I don't take what you say that >> serious has my expertise has to do with appeasement Secondly, I reject the entire premise of just looking at everything through the inner war period because what is what have they called Donald Trump since day one? They've called him Hitler and they've called every one of us that wear these hats and these red hats Nazis. And it is so ridiculous and it's so repulsive and it's so insulting. Instead, as a historian, you should not just try to find similarities. You have an obligation to find differences. >> Say, how is Trump different than the inner war period? How is Trump different than Adolf Hitler? Can you tell me three ways he's different? I can give you a hundred ways in which he's different. >> Okay. But then you but you came up here with just the similarities. >> Would you like me to have come up here and talked about all the similarities or I mean is this conversation supposed to be prove me wrong? >> Yes. They they were both you know men with XY chromosomes and like I mean you could go through all the different the similarities >> and that's making a tright argument there. >> But but the this is really important is that important is that our current we are prisoners of the talking points of that everything bad is Hitler and everything bad is Nazi Germany. >> That way I I despise But you're you're actively playing into it. Instead, as a historian, what you should be saying is >> you're not even allowing me to ask the question. >> Allow allow me to finish. Instead, as a historian, what you should be saying is, I know this period than anybody else better, >> and I think it's ridiculous when people even get close to asking these questions. You are failing as a historian to lead people there. There's a big difference. You are failing as a professor not to do that. >> Because if a student walks into Let me tell you why. I'm going to finish. Because all of a sudden, it justifies violence and death threats against us. Because the left is propagandized by professors like you being told that we are Nazis all the time and they come after. >> I haven't called anyone here a Nazi whatsoever. >> Everything you have said is the embedded through line. >> If my student walks into my class and starts pointing everything a fascist, I provide that correction. You did point out this is my area of expertise and you won't even allow me to ask the question and make the comparison. >> No, we we allowed you to do it and then you said here's all the similarities and it's a great grave. >> I have not given one criticism to your character or to your intelligence. I've been up here and you've done it multiple times for me. >> I'm not taking money from kids to go them study history at the University of Florida. I don't have a PhD and you do. Okay. So, the the the the incumbent incumbent intellectual advantage is on you. You have a PhD. I do not. You have a moral obligation when kids go into debt into your class and when you have a public platform to lead them towards saying actually no, the people in media are misrepresenting this and this isn't actually the rise of Nazi Germany. you said you're like, well, we should consider this and the similarities are kind of eerily and chilling, which is completely my area of study, but I do have one thing and I'll go ahead and I do appreciate your time. I do u I remember I did during the election night in November, I sat back and I kind of I I was going through YouTube channels who was doing the coverage and I actually enjoyed your coverage and there was a point in which Trump won Pennsylvania that you got emotional and you actually shed a tear to. I wonder at what point in that emotional response goes from felicity and joy of Shane te of this liberator to actually sorrow of seeing that this is going to get to the point where it could lead to oppression. And that's where my question was. >> Do you know why I cried on election night? >> Uh because you thought it was a restoration of the Judeo-Christian values that are inherent to the to the constitution. >> Let me tell you why because I think you might appreciate this as a historian. Um Joe Biden sent the entire federal government after Turning Point USA and me personally. They wanted me in federal prison, >> right? >> We don't want that. And and by the way, that's what death spots do, not Donald Trump. Let me finish. And so when Donald Trump won, it was a sigh of relief that maybe I won't have to go to federal prison. Maybe I can actually be around my kids >> and maybe we can live in a free society. >> Criticizing Trump does not mean I support Biden. >> I I never said you did, but you also should, and I want you to do this. I want you in your next class also say, "Well, here's all the similarities between Joe Biden and Adolf Hitler." And there's a lot, but I don't do that because I think it's intellectually sloppy. historically very dangerous because not everything can be compared to the most evil person ever to live. In fact, maybe we should a society reserve that and say we're only going to use the Hitler reference very rarely, very sparingly. Putin is Hitler. Trump is Hitler. MAGA is Hitler. Instead, let's take a step back and say no, this was a unique evil, a horror, and comparing everything to that period, not what you're doing, but you're getting close to it. Cheapens the evil of that period. Focus on the comparison gets rid of the ideological rhetoric. >> Or talk about the differences, not just the comparison, because the differences will dericalize. >> If you and I were sitting down having a beer, we would have talked about the differences and the having a club. >> With this environment here, >> with this environment here, I focuses on the differences. So, I appreciate >> you very much. Have a good class. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Hello. Make sure you tilt the mic up. >> Thank you. Uh, my name is Nathan and I'm a and I'm a journalism student here at the University of Florida. And I think you >> I think you mentioned free speech in the last conversation about six or seven times. Uh, what do you think is the precedent that it sets when a sitting president bans a news organization from the press pool because they won't use the government approved terminology that's on your shirt? It's perfectly acceptable. The same way that Joe Biden banned a lot of conservative media from the reporting room. I mean, >> Joe Biden didn't ban any conservative >> Breitbart, One America's News Network, uh, Real Real America's Voice. Uh, there were a lot of press passes that were denied under the prior administration under Joe Biden. >> Joe Biden did not have control over the White House press pool. That's an independent organization that has functioned for the last 50 years. >> Well, if that's correct, why did the judge side with Trump? >> Excuse me. >> So, ABC AP sue Trump. >> Yeah. and lost because Trump actually does have jurisdiction over the White House press pool. >> Trump does not have jurisdiction over the White House press pool. The judge ruled that it wasn't an immediate emergency. >> Okay, but let me ask you, I think it's >> I believe the judge did say it was very concerning. >> If Trump does not have power over who's allowed on White House grounds, who does? >> An independent organization that's separate from politics because I think it's very concerning when the government gets to choose who covers them. >> No, I think that's an interesting question. So, constitutionally, what you're saying is that an independent organization should be allowed to say who could set foot on government turf. >> Yes. >> How is that constitutional? >> Well, I mean, it's not part of the press has never been part of the constitution. >> Well, no, it's it's actually in the first amendment, but like >> No, the first amendment says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of the press. >> No, I know. Correct. But article two of the constitution it says all power shall be vested in a president. So doesn't the president have the ability the power if he so chooses of who comes on article 2 ground and who does not. >> So the president should not have control over who covers him. I mean would you support >> they can still cover him outside of white house grounds. >> Would you support Joe Biden banning Fox News from the White House press pool? >> Would I support it? No. I'd be outraged about it obviously. >> So do you understand the outrage when the AP is there? >> He has the power to do it. Outrage and power are two different things. So absolutely you're making a constitutional argument and then a moral argument. I can get to the moral one. Does Trump have the power to do it? >> Yes. Okay, we agree. So he's not doing anything illegal. >> I would not say he's doing anything wrong. >> Okay, we agree. Now, is he doing anything wrong? Well, the Associated Press is deciding not to call what was once called the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. That is not living in factual or journalistic reality. That's them saying that we're going to name whatever we want to name whatever we want. Why should they continue to get a White House press pass when they do that? >> So, they they're an international organization and they have international standards. The Associated Press doesn't just do news for the US and nobody else calls the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. And I think the more pressing issue is you have somebody choosing the terminology that a news organization can use. >> Well, okay. I I can kind of see where you're coming at. But I would say more more pressingly though, >> I think that's the most pressing. >> The the the president does have the authority to rename Gulfs, rivers, mountains legally. >> Yeah, he could name Mount Rushmore Mount Trump. >> Yeah, he could. Yeah. Um well, just wait. It might happen. So, um but >> I guess more I guess more concretely, how is it an attack on the press to say that you're not allowed on White House grounds if you don't comply with our standards? It's just a matter of standards >> because it fosters a culture of retaliation if you don't use the government approved terminology. >> Okay. So, >> so yeah, like for example, if they call him President John, not President Trump, how how should that be treated? >> They should be allowed to call him whatever they want. That's the press. >> Yes. And then the president should be able to act on whatever he wants in response to that. >> The guard on the press is not the president. The guard on the press is the people. >> Hold on. Hold on a second. You live in a free market. No. the the president the same way Congress allows what what press to come on Capitol Hill and whatever you know the president can choose I don't want you in the White House press pool anymore they could still write blogs and articles that nobody reads down the street but to invite them onto White House grounds is a privilege not a right to come onto White House grounds is something that could be taken away from you by bad behavior reckless behavior by doing things that are inaccurate or unfactual >> specifically using not using government approved terminology technology. >> I mean, but what terminology are they using? One that is not correct. I mean, we're talking past each other in some ways. But I I am curious though, how is it? >> Would you say that we have a freer press under Trump or a freer press under Joe Biden? >> I honestly couldn't answer that question. >> Okay, fair enough. >> Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. >> All right. Thank you. >> Disagreements. Welcome. We only gotten the three questions so far. Yes, ma'am. >> Hi. Um I around the US currently a lot of states have been raising bills to legalize recreational marijuana use for adults over the age of 21. So in Florida we had amendment three but it did not pass this election cycle. Um I was just wondering what your opinion would be on that. I I lose the audience every time on this but I don't care. Um I'm very much against the use of marijuana both personally and legally and I'm happy to debate it if you guys want. So the best argument and you I'm booing and people are cooing. It's fine. I'll I'll try to prove you wrong. The best argument is why should the government be involved in it? That's the best argument. However, if you for a second think that it is admirable and good to put a psychoactive chemical marijuana in your body and think that it's great for you, I I think you got another thing coming. Whether it be psychosis, increase in hospitalization, increase in depression, increase in anxiety in and the the the stories after stories that show the impact of marijuana on people's own mental health is extraordinary. Now, you might say, "Well, it's helped me and all that." Maybe. Well, I mean, that that's that's to be debated, but let's let's kind of let's challenge the legalization advocates. Advocates for the legalization of marijuana have made promises throughout the years. Legalize weed and you'll get these things. They say less kids will use it because it will be legalized. They say the cartels will be weakened if it gets legalized. And number three, that we will be able to go after harder drugs and that generally drug use will go down. And then finally, crime will go down. In every state where it's legalized, we have seen more kids use marijuana, not less kids use marijuana. The cartels are richer and stronger and more profitable than ever before. Drug use across the country has gone up, and it has not resulted in safer marijuana being consumed. The black market is actually stronger than ever. So, almost every single lie and crime has also gone up. Almost. And by the way, I think I smell weed right now. It's disgusting. Um, and almost every single lie they've told us has been has been proven incorrect. And I will ask a more broad question which is and people say you know well what about alcohol? Okay well I first of all I don't drink so I'm not like the biggest defender of alcohol and before before you guys talk about how great alcohol is. How many of you have a father and uncle that has done something violent or regrettable after they drank alcohol? It is the number one driver of domestic abuse. It's the number one killer of our kids with DUIs. Alcohol is I'm not saying it should be illegal, but maybe we should stop glamorizing drinking all the time and talk about how bad it is for humanity and bad for our bodies. So, here's my general position. We should be talking about less substances, not more substances. That if you think you need a substance to get through the day, I think you're incorrect. And we have we already have, and this is my final point, the most drugaddicted, suicidal, alcohol addicted, anxious generation in the history of the country. and we're saying here, go take more substances to solve that. Maybe we should go back to a country where our kids were not necessarily inundated with drug paraphernalia all the time. And yes, of course, it was around the ' 60s, '7s, or ' 80s. It's much more potent, much stronger than it is today. I think it's made us a sicker, less happy, more depressed country. >> So, would you be like for repealing the 21st amendment? >> Uh, which is the alcohol? >> Yes. Not nec no one would agree with me because I'm not I'm not a dictator, but I would say that like there there's a good argument that alcohol has done incredible damage to this country. Again, I'm a personal liberty guy generally. But before we like say, "Oh, you know, you're against prohibition." Why did we pass prohibition in the first place? We passed prohibition in the first place because there were millions of praying wives that wanted to get their husbands off of the cycle of addiction. And everyone in this audience knows someone that alcohol has destroyed their life. Everyone. And we kind of don't talk about it. and we don't look at it, but it's one of America's greatest problems right now is alcohol addiction. It makes us more violent. It makes us worse spouses. It makes us worse parents. Um it might make college more fun, but long term it has incredible health outcomes. But no, I wouldn't repeal it. The people wouldn't want it, but um I would it's also two different things. One is making something illegal that is currently legal, where marijuana is making something legal that is currently illegal. So they're two separate topics. Um, and I for one do not want to see more kids get into a cycle of unnecessary substance addiction when we're already so addicted as a country. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Yeah. You want a hat? Oh, you got a hat. Thank you, ma'am. >> Sorry, I'm a little short. >> All right. First of all, great to meet you. Thank you so much for being here, supporting us. Uh, so you're extremely outspoken about your belief that collegiate education is a scam. As a recent UF grad and current grad student at the college of ed, I 100% agree with it in theory, but I find it's a difficult belief to stick to in practice. So many of the quote entry-level jobs that I've been looking to pursue require not only a bach bachelor's or master's degree, but also several years of experience uh just to get a foot in the door. So my question is realistically, how long do you think it would take to actually shift this job market away from these degree requirements? And what would that transition realistically look like? How can we get involved? >> Phenomenal question. what what are what do you want to do with your life and what are you studying? >> Yeah, so I'm studying uh education sciences currently going through a degree in curriculum and instruction masters program. Um I hope to be an instructional designer. So modulebased learning, that kind of stuff. >> So so a couple things. Um number one, which is that half of you in this audience that are going to college, if you get a job, will get a job that does not require a college degree. >> Okay? >> So and so just shows to show that half of you are kind of here just for >> I don't know uh an okay football team. Sorry, Anthony. Um, and >> go Gators. >> Hey, I I like I've been cheering for you guys for years, but post Urban Meyer, you guys can't get out of your own way. So, >> we're basketball school right now. >> I I will say I will say I always cheer University of Florida against Florida State. Always. So, I always do. So, I won the audience on that one. So, there you go. Um, I'll Yeah, exactly. Um but so >> there there's so much changing in education right now. Here's where I think the reckoning is going to come. >> Yeah. >> With the with the proliferation of artificial intelligence, it's becoming far less necessary to just sit through college and get a diploma and get a degree. In practice, you're right, because they still need the certification. They still need the kind of stamp of approval, right? >> But it's correct. A lot of kids are being scammed and unnecessarily told they have to go to college. >> Yeah, that's what I'm running into right now though. So, as I go to pursue all these opportunities, not only the bachelor's, the master's degree, just 5 years of experience for an entry- level job. I was just wondering like like you were saying, how long do you think it would take? Like, would my kids be able to live in a world where >> I think so. I think that within 10 years, college rates are going to go down dramatically. I think a lot of these places are going to become museums of their former selves. Um, and I I I think that we're going to get to a place where it's highly specialized, highly compartmentalized, which will be great. Less debt, >> less time unnecessary. And here's the thing. I think that there's so much untapped entrepreneurial potential amongst all of you. I think all of you guys have the ability to start businesses and take risks and going to college makes it a lot harder to do that. >> Yeah. So, if we all dropped out today, maybe there wouldn't be a change. >> I'm not saying to do that, but Right. Right. Right. I'm saying though that you're not getting the best value proposition for being in college. >> All right. Well, I appreciate >> you. You want a hat? >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> And any disagreements, you guys can come up. Yeah. >> Thanks. >> Hi, Charlie. My name is Joe. Um, so there's been a lot of talk with the Doge funding situation with USAD. Um and almost all the discourse has been surrounding just sort of these like topline uh very surface level line items like uh you know transgender music festivals in Guatemala things like that right and I think that this discourse while there's definitely some degree of waste fraud and abuse uh misses the real purpose of USA ID which is to expand and exert US soft power influence to secure American interests And so when we focus on just the title, we're not really having any greater depth of understanding of the nature of this operation. And maybe it's deranged, but I worry we throw the baby out with the bathwater by shutting the whole thing down. And you know, there's definitely flaws, but it helped secure American interest. What do you think? >> It's a smart question. I agree with a lot of it. I I don't need to go through all the waste because you acknowledge it's the silly stuff. I want to first say this that USA ID was started by an executive order by JFK but what you're talking about exerting soft power will continue just now under the state department. >> So of course there are some e it makes sense for example if there is a country that we want to try and move closer towards American interest. Let's use a country like Vietnam. Vietnam is constantly under threat by the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP is doing everything they can instead of sending money to Vietnam. Again, this one is uh for, you know, going to environmental and social justice in Africa, $520 million. I mean, it's insane. I I printed these out for a reason that we'll be able to use it more with more precision and more fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers. No disagreement. I think it could be be and here's the actual argument. Can't that be much better done through the State Department than its own outside agency? Because it really is a State Department task, which is diplomacy. Well, I think that kind of neglects to consider how dirty a circumstance the sausage gets made. Like Milton Friedman talks about like here's a pencil, right? You know what it took for it to get here, right? We're talking about like infiltration of labor movements, overthrowing uh governments, like some of this stuff. >> I don't support that. >> Well, okay, but this is a big part in large part of what has secured material prosperity. So then that becomes a question of what principles should guide the practices we employ because state department not directly overseeing it is what has allowed us to avoid executive approval and executive culpability in the really unsavory stuff that they do which >> to serve American interests. >> That's why we want to roll it back in because that dark stuff has actually done a lot of damage to our interests. For example, the what we did in Libya, USA Idea was heavily involved. what we did in Syria, uh, what was being done in Ukraine, heavily involved, and I'm very much against it. I think actually eliminating a blackbox budget for international neoonservative adventures is a good thing, but maybe you can tell me what what regime change or infiltration of labor movements has helped American interests the last couple decades. It's a good question and um it reminds me of this this war game that they ran where the idea was to pause a Chinese port building being built in a subsaharan African country and part of that operation involved giving uh the workers who were on the construction site uh money for no-show jobs to stop working on the construction of the port to buy the diplomat time and and leverage to prevent its construction for the CCP. So this is stuff that's like necessarily below the table because it's subversive and there was also a racial animous element of dividing them from the Chinese businessmen. But >> my point is this stuff is gross but it also is a part of grand strategy that's existed for it's a smart point. I don't want to take too much time on it. Number one then then why the heck does the CIA have a budget because they also have hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't track. So that's that's more of an intel agency thing. Number two, what what you would say is the dark stuff. It operates much more like a racket. I mean, it doesn't necessarily advance American interests. And that's the whole point. Let's do a let's do a clearing house. Let's see if it's actually put the ball forward. And the State Department is the best place to actually double triple and check that. And when you go I mean I don't want to go through this. It's so insane. But I mean $42 million for behavior change in Uganda. I mean it's like it's just for a John Hopkins to research social and behavior change in Uganda. I mean no one should have to pay taxes towards stuff like that. So >> Sure. Okay. Last point. >> So then what it really comes down to is what should the principles be which dictate us >> America first? What benefits the homeland? What benefits our people not just incursions abroad? >> That's the principle. >> Which of us though? Because a lot of this it's tied up with the Chamber of Commerce, American business interest. These are sort of transient, multinational, not really. >> So the people, we the citizenry. So what benefits the everyday middle class American? >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you. Smart question. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Disagreements. Welcome. Anybody can come up. Yeah. >> Yeah. This is kind of continuation of what you said last week in USF because you know my son was in your talk last week. Okay. The the thing is I mean you mentioned TM Square in your last talk. Uh I I wasn't there. I want to know your I mean your perception on the TM square because I'm from China. >> Okay. Were you there? I'm sorry. I want to make sure I understand. You said you were there. >> You were not there. >> I I was in I was there. It's really hard to find one. Who was actually there? >> Okay. What is my perception of what happened? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um what happened was there was widespread student protest happening throughout mainline china. >> Okay. >> The incumbent um Chinese military which I believe was run by Dean Ping. I could be wrong. Was it Desia Ping or somebody? Absolutely. Yes, >> it was Desia Ping, right? Yeah. >> Des Xiaoping was very worried that the student protests might overthrow the then incumbent Chinese Communist Party structure. The military was mobilized in response against it and a lot of students were brutally assaulted. Some were murdered and it and it ended up in a faceoff between a singular student in Tianaan Square in front of a tank which is otherwise known as tank man which then led to a deescalation and the end the the suns setting of the terrible incidents at Tianan Square. Am I am I generally correct? >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I cannot disagree with that. Uh my second question is what's your uh perception of the the USChina relationship in the future in the near future in the next four years 5 years? >> Uh my perception is this is that uh we need to win and we need to avoid a war against China militarily because I think >> it's not going to happen. >> It's never going to happen. >> I never believe it's going to happen. No. >> Tell me why. >> I don't think you know China really want to have a war with anybody. That's my perception. I I know a lot of Chinese don't agree with me, but my perception based on what happened in the last 35 years, I don't think they're going to start a war against Taiwan or even I mean any any country. >> You might be right. I I don't know the answer, but I think we have to avoid that. But I think that the Chinese Communist Party has proven through their lying of COVID, their hacking of our cyber grid, through the hacking of our critical infrastructure that they are not an ally of the United States and that we need to win. We need to win economically. we need to win culturally and that we need to say no more outsized Chinese Communist Party influence in America. But let me say one final thing is that we as Americans need to stand on the side of Laai which which is the people of China. The people of China are phenomenal not the gangsters running the Chinese Communist Party. Laai Jing is the everyday Chinese people that are the workers and that are being abused by the CCP. I am pro-Chinese worker and person, but I'm against the CCP. Oh, I I definitely disagree with that. It used to be the case like you said, but it's not the case anymore because a lot of people most Chinese hate America. >> Oh, you would say that? >> That's the truth. Yes, absolutely. Because you I've been I've been on Chinese social media, there's so much hatred towards us in the last I don't know since the beginning of the co >> What percentage would you say? >> At least 50%. Minimum. >> That's disturbing because it used to be much different. >> Exactly. You know, in around Tman Square, most people really like America, but not anymore. Literally. I'm not kidding. I'm I'm not just like against those the members of Chinese Communist Party, but I'm I'm talking about the general public. >> Thank you for your question. I appreciate it. >> Can I have a hat? >> Yes, of course. By the way, whoever's smoking weed is doing a great job proving why it shouldn't be legalized. That smells terrible. It's awful. Like, why should I have to now sit here and smell that garbage for two hours because somebody wants to be lazy today or something? stupid. >> Hello, Charlie. I'm Jaden. Um, nice to meet you. Um, my question regards Doge and I know that you are a big Doge guy, correct? Um, so basically my question is should there be a systematic way to eliminate waste more than what it already is and how should that be implemented? For example, um I was applying to grad schools and I am doing research in machine learning and computer architecture. The grad school could not afford to get me. So they admitted me into a master's program rather than a PhD because they do not have the funding and are scared of Doge. At what point is it wrong to cut funding for engineering students like myself rather than just random waste? I think it's totally right to cut your funding. If you want to be an engineer, pay for it yourself. Like, why should taxpayers pay for your school? >> Because because in a completely capitalist society, right, if I'm doing cyber security research, >> how am I going to sell this on a nationwide scale? Yeah, Apple and Microsoft may buy it intrinsically, but however, if this if this research benefits the country as a whole, such as the defense sector from China, stuff like that, would it not be beneficial to keep this funding? >> No. Pay for yourself. Private sector, we fund so much stuff we shouldn't fund. We have to make tough decisions. We are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. We are a nation on financial and fiscal abyss. We're going towards an apocalypse. And that requires tough decisions. And so if you want to go do that program, you might have to take out a loan and bet on yourself. And and if you think it's going to work, great. This this changes the incentive structure. The days of us subsidizing every good story, which I'm sure it's a good story, is over. We do not have enough money to sustain the current government that we have. And so we can either make tough decisions and cut things that might make some people upset, or we can keep on borrowing trillions of dollars that we do not have and become a forever deter nation. >> So I'm going to be honest. I did not expect this answer. I knew you were anti-Dei. >> I didn't think you would be going to be for cutting like STEM programs. >> I'm pro STEM. Just pay for it yourself. >> Have companies pay for it. Raise money. Go to donors. If it's a great idea, do like Turning Point USA received zero dollars from the federal government. >> It's a great idea. It's inspire a lot of people. I go to donors and they give me money. >> So, >> it's of great national importance, right? We have millions of members. We helped get a president elected. The point being is if it's a great idea, go and convince people and persuade them. Don't just go to the taxpayer and say, "Give me money because it's a good idea." Does that make sense? >> Yeah, that makes sense. Um I guess one last thing is like I guess at what point does a government step in and pay for things then? Like at what point do we draw the line of it's okay to >> Well, once we have a balanced budget, we can start having discussions again. Number one. Number two, it's is it cons