Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: Very excited to be joined today by a presidential contender
Speaker 1: and also full disclosure, a close personal friend, Mary and Williamson.
Speaker 3: Great to see you.
Speaker 4: It's great to see you too, both of you. Thank
Speaker 4: you absolutely so.
Speaker 1: As someone who wants to be commander in chief, I
Speaker 1: thought we would start with the breaking news out of Russia,
Speaker 1: which we've been covering extensively. What do you think that
Speaker 1: this aborted coup attempt means for Putin and especially means
Speaker 1: for the Ukraine War and our involvement in it.
Speaker 5: Well, in terms of what it means for Putin overall,
Speaker 5: we don't know all the facts yet. I mean, we
Speaker 5: went from progosion to trader to all charges are dropped.
Speaker 5: We're sending him to Belarus. So We don't really know
Speaker 5: what's going on behind the scenes, but we do know this.
Speaker 5: We do know that Putin looks vulnerable now in a
Speaker 5: way that he hasn't during his entire tenure, and the
Speaker 5: oligarchs are watching, the people who are really in power
Speaker 5: in Russia are watching. So this definitely hurt him that way,
Speaker 5: no matter how it shapes up now. Regarding the specifics
Speaker 5: of pregosion and that will affect the Ukraine War, I
Speaker 5: certainly think it has given a psychological boost to the Ukrainians.
Speaker 2: So, Marianne, what do you think about continued US military
Speaker 2: aid currently to Ukraine. How would your policy different be
Speaker 2: different from Joe Biden's should you be elected president? And
Speaker 2: do you think that regime change instability like this inside
Speaker 2: of Russia is a desirable goal?
Speaker 5: Well, the reason it's not a desirable goal is because
Speaker 5: of nuclear bombs.
Speaker 4: It's dangerous.
Speaker 5: If there were to be regime changed in Russia, we
Speaker 5: don't know that it would be people who would be
Speaker 5: better for us. So any instability there, it cannot be
Speaker 5: taken for granted, is a good thing for the United States.
Speaker 5: That's number one. In terms of Joe Biden. He seems
Speaker 5: to be taking an attitude of for as long as
Speaker 5: it takes. I certainly don't think we should be saying
Speaker 5: as long as it takes. We should be putting this
Speaker 5: thing to bed as soon as possible. The issue is
Speaker 5: how do you do that. It's easy enough to say
Speaker 5: we need to cease fire. Well, both the Ukrainians and
Speaker 5: the Russians want to cease fire. Sure, but the Russians
Speaker 5: definitely want to cease fire. Great, right now, what that
Speaker 5: means they want? The Ukrainians say we want to cease fire.
Speaker 5: Russians need to leave here. We should support whatever efforts
Speaker 5: might be possible. There was a time when g went
Speaker 5: to Russia. We thought something big and important might happen.
Speaker 5: Soelenski said to call me, I want this. We're not
Speaker 5: living in a unipolo world anymore. The United States is
Speaker 5: not the only power broker here. Denmark, the Foreign Minister
Speaker 5: of Denmark recently said we'll host a summit. He said
Speaker 5: it can't just be Ukrainian allies, it also be others.
Speaker 4: I think that that's really what we're talking about here.
Speaker 5: I think some people see the United States as the
Speaker 5: only power broker that matters here, and it's something not.
Speaker 1: That we do matter, though, we are a significant power broker,
Speaker 1: if not the only one, you know, would you support
Speaker 1: potentially withholding military aid to sort of pressure Zelenski to
Speaker 1: come to the table and accept what, in any circumstance
Speaker 1: is going to be some difficult concessions if you were
Speaker 1: going to come to negotiated settlement here.
Speaker 4: At a certain point. I don't think this week is
Speaker 4: that point.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, in the middle of a counter offensive and
Speaker 5: especially now with what's going on with precovision.
Speaker 4: Absolutely that time might come.
Speaker 2: So that time might come, But I think that the
Speaker 2: question is around the limiting principles and like what does
Speaker 2: that look for you? So obviously concerned around nuclear war,
Speaker 2: we should also be concerned about the integrity of the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian regime some of the makeup of those forces. To
Speaker 2: any of the makeup of the forces concern you. You know,
Speaker 2: we've been casting them, you know, almost as a unilateral
Speaker 2: force that you know, some force of democracy, and unfortunately
Speaker 2: that doesn't remain the case. It doesn't mean that they
Speaker 2: don't mean to be invaded. So what is your view
Speaker 2: currently of the makeup of the Ukrainian government. What are
Speaker 2: some of the things you would look for in terms
Speaker 2: of what a potential negotiation would look like and then
Speaker 2: what a future of ukraineou look like.
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, I do believe that they have
Speaker 5: a right to sovereignty. Of course, I do believe that they
Speaker 5: have a right to their own free agency. And I
Speaker 5: don't believe that they would be fighting the way they're
Speaker 5: fighting if they were just agents and puppets of the
Speaker 5: US State Department. I don't I think that, and I
Speaker 5: think they have a right to their country. On the
Speaker 5: other hand, sometimes in war you don't get everything that
Speaker 5: you wanted at the beginning, and there is a point
Speaker 5: at which, listen, it's not even there as a point
Speaker 5: at which we're already at the point where this has
Speaker 5: to be a negotia negotiated settlement nothing else is possible.
Speaker 5: I would like to see, as Europeans would like to
Speaker 5: see this to be a settlement in which there is
Speaker 5: still a Ukraine. Now, some people, and some of my
Speaker 5: opponent chaires, seem to think that if it just stops
Speaker 5: the way it is and we just withdraw support, Putin's
Speaker 5: just this nice guy and everything will be great because
Speaker 5: he's gotten everything that he wants. That's really what we're
Speaker 5: talking about. Here one of us is wrong and one
Speaker 5: of us is right. I don't believe that about Putin.
Speaker 5: This is I look at the Ukrainian Russian situation within
Speaker 5: the context of a broader sense of where the world
Speaker 5: is now. This is no longer a unipolar world. When
Speaker 5: it was a unipolar world, we misused our power. We
Speaker 5: misused our power in many many ways. We were manipulative,
Speaker 5: we were exploitative, we were militaristic, We were imperialistic, both
Speaker 5: economically and militarily. We squandered our resources of moral authority,
Speaker 5: We squandered our resources of military authority or even military
Speaker 5: respect from people around the world. So we are now
Speaker 5: one of many great powers. We have to become more
Speaker 5: humble and realize that I see foreign relationships the same
Speaker 5: way I see domestic relationships. Nobody owns this country. We
Speaker 5: all have to live here in this country. We all
Speaker 5: own it. We don't always agree, we have to own it.
Speaker 5: At the same time, you don't get to invade my space.
Speaker 5: And that's how I see foreign relations as well. So
Speaker 5: we have to There has to be a deep reset
Speaker 5: of our relationship, whether it's with China, whether it's with India,
Speaker 5: whether it's with Russia, with Latin America, with Africa and
Speaker 5: within that, you don't get to invade my space. And
Speaker 5: that's really what's happening with Ukraine. Russia feels that we
Speaker 5: have invaded his space. Ukraine feels they have invaded ukraine space.
Speaker 5: I feel that they have invaded ukraine space.
Speaker 2: So in the SOE he used the term though my space.
Speaker 2: So I mean, do we are we saying that we
Speaker 2: have a security guarantee to Ukraine? I mean, would Ukraine
Speaker 2: ever be in NATO under your presidency?
Speaker 5: Would you entertain well even that you know, you know,
Speaker 5: I heard one of my opponents say what we need
Speaker 5: to do is just make sure.
Speaker 4: That Ukraine says we will never join NATO.
Speaker 5: To me, that is an example of America doing what
Speaker 5: many people on the left say we don't want America
Speaker 5: to do. I don't think that that should just be
Speaker 5: America's decision, whether it's you will join NATO or you
Speaker 5: won't join NATO. I know that we're the most important
Speaker 5: player there, but we're part of a European alliance. And
Speaker 5: I find, you know, you look at someone like Finland.
Speaker 5: Finland stayed neutral for decades and now they've joined NATO.
Speaker 4: You know the Europeans.
Speaker 5: You know, I was in I just spent a month
Speaker 5: in London, and I heard several times the word narcissistic
Speaker 5: about a lot of the views of the Ukrainian War
Speaker 5: expressed by some on the American left. They said, what
Speaker 5: a narcissistic view. This is not just about you. And
Speaker 5: I think that if we are going to see ourselves
Speaker 5: it's part of a broader international alliance and part of
Speaker 5: a deeply held Western alliance, then we take very seriously
Speaker 5: such issues as the nation doing what it wants to do.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, if you were to be
Speaker 1: president of the United States, your priorities first and foremost
Speaker 1: the safety and security of the American people, and Ukraine
Speaker 1: entering NATO means, obviously than we are extending Article five
Speaker 1: protection to the Ukrainians and saying our sons and daughters
Speaker 1: would go and fight a war to protect their sovereignty.
Speaker 1: Of course, we spend a lot more money in terms
Speaker 1: of NATO than any other country in the world. It's
Speaker 1: our nuclear umbrella that becomes involved. So there is a
Speaker 1: sort of, you know, a central position, and especially with
Speaker 1: regards an American president in terms of how they think
Speaker 1: about Ukraine, potentially joining NATO, because the reporting is right
Speaker 1: now that a lot of the European allies are like, yes,
Speaker 1: let's give Ukraine a specific pathway into NATO. But we
Speaker 1: also know that that was not all of it, but
Speaker 1: part of the provocation that led to this illegal war
Speaker 1: on Russia's behalf where they felt like their sovereignty was
Speaker 1: at stake.
Speaker 4: Well, I know that that's sort of the line.
Speaker 5: It was a provocation and they felt their sovereignty was
Speaker 5: at stake. Ukraine did not invade Russian. Russian invaded Ukraine.
Speaker 5: That let's be really clear about that. What one person
Speaker 5: calls provocation, another person just seize as the excuse, right, right,
Speaker 5: And people.
Speaker 1: Are behaving as an empire does.
Speaker 5: Which is exactly what Russia is doing right now.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm saying exactly.
Speaker 1: You have to understand that they're an empire and that
Speaker 1: if you know, engage in things that they view as provocations,
Speaker 1: this is not a justification. It's just an empire is
Speaker 1: going to behave in the way that an empire does.
Speaker 5: Right So, in the fact that there has to be
Speaker 5: a negotiated settlement, obviously, the question of NATO, of Ukraine
Speaker 5: joining NATO it's part of that settlement. It would certainly
Speaker 5: seem to me likely that there would be a depending
Speaker 5: on what the settlement is. Obviously, it's probably not the
Speaker 5: best time right now anyway for the.
Speaker 2: Door open, though to possible Ukrainian I.
Speaker 4: Have a hard time with being even I know what
Speaker 4: you said.
Speaker 5: You said you're the American commander in chief, but that's
Speaker 5: exactly the kind of thing I think that we should
Speaker 5: not be the pastor we should not be taking. I
Speaker 5: don't think as the American president I should be making
Speaker 5: a statement one way or the other as a candidate,
Speaker 5: yes they should or yes they shouldn't. NATO chief recently
Speaker 5: came to Washington to lobby Biden for that, and Biden himself,
Speaker 5: who is he said, let's stay away from that.
Speaker 4: So now I don't want to say that they should.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to talk a little bit about Israel,
Speaker 1: which has been another, you know, subject of continued controversy
Speaker 1: and concern about how our relationship with Israel should or
Speaker 1: could change. Just a specific question, you know, do you
Speaker 1: support a two state solution? What is your view of
Speaker 1: the ideal sort of settlement at this point, recognizing that
Speaker 1: Israel has continued to engage in these illegal settlements, taking
Speaker 1: more and more of the territory of the occupied territories
Speaker 1: and making it so difficult to come to any sort
Speaker 1: of two state solution.
Speaker 5: The settlements are illegal, the occupation is illegal. The blockade
Speaker 5: of Gaza is a moral and it's wrong. There is
Speaker 5: a moral law and the founding of the state of
Speaker 5: Israel justice. There was a moral flaw the founding of
Speaker 5: the United States and justice. The United States has had
Speaker 5: to deal with that and needs to deal with it.
Speaker 5: And just as they say in Black Lives Matter, no justice,
Speaker 5: no peace, the same applies to Israel. They're going to
Speaker 5: have to deal with this and there will be no justice.
Speaker 5: There will be no peace until there's justice, and there
Speaker 5: is no military solution there. One of the problems we
Speaker 5: have is that we now have the most right wing
Speaker 5: government that they've ever had. This isn't even of a
Speaker 5: few years ago. So at this point the United States
Speaker 5: needs to make it very very clear that the basic
Speaker 5: tenor and the basic behavioral patterns of the Israeli government
Speaker 5: go against our own values, go against the values.
Speaker 4: That we consider that which we should in any way support.
Speaker 5: Now in terms of the money that is given right
Speaker 5: Now there's a memorandum of understanding until twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 5: so we take an Act of Congress actually to withhold
Speaker 5: that money. But the United States absolutely can say that
Speaker 5: that money will not in any way go to activities
Speaker 5: such as something in the settlement, something in the in
Speaker 5: the occupied territory that in any way transgresses against our values.
Speaker 5: And as president, I would definitely make this clear. Biden's
Speaker 5: handoff approach there is not acceptable.
Speaker 2: So you would you would condition military aid based upon
Speaker 2: the behavior of these.
Speaker 5: Really government Yeah, like I said, the military aid, it's well,
Speaker 5: the aid itself is not specifically Yeah, so the State
Speaker 5: Department A goes until twenty twenty eight. It would take
Speaker 5: an Act of Congress to change that. But absolutely, as president,
Speaker 5: I would say this money cannot be used in any
Speaker 5: ways which transgressed against our values. And I would say
Speaker 5: it needs to be said.
Speaker 1: So you just level one criticism against current President Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: You know, how do you think he's done in office?
Speaker 1: And obviously a lot of voters have concerns just about
Speaker 1: his age and his basic fitness to serve, concerns that
Speaker 1: he has been unable to put to bed because he
Speaker 1: doesn't subject himself to a lot of interviews. He's not
Speaker 1: planning to debate you or RFK Junior or anymore mouse
Speaker 1: he jumps in the race. Do you personally believe Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is fit to serve another term as president?
Speaker 5: I think to look at a man his age and
Speaker 5: think forward four years, I think, for me, it's an
Speaker 5: unreasonable assumption that he would be at the top of
Speaker 5: his game. But to me, even if he was at
Speaker 5: the top of his game, I'm not running because he's
Speaker 5: not at the top of his game. Even if he
Speaker 5: is at the top of his game, I'm running because
Speaker 5: I do not agree with the direction that that administration
Speaker 5: is leading the country. I do not believe that it's
Speaker 5: the direction that will even be able to defeat the
Speaker 5: Democrats the Republicans in twenty twenty four, and I don't
Speaker 5: think that it's a direction that is good for this
Speaker 5: country over the next four years.
Speaker 4: I feel that this country is.
Speaker 5: In bigger trouble than the political elites seem to realize.
Speaker 5: I think that the rabble, what they would call a rabble,
Speaker 5: is closer to the gates of the Bastille than they
Speaker 5: have any idea. And I feel like what we're living
Speaker 5: through right now is a kind of slow motion. It's
Speaker 5: like watching a slow motion car crash, except it's actually
Speaker 5: two thousands sixteen. People simply did not realize how much
Speaker 5: pain there is out there, how much to spare, how
Speaker 5: much anger. In twenty sixteen, there were two candidates who
Speaker 5: said it. Bernie said it and Trump said it. And
Speaker 5: the difference was that Bernie really meant it, and as president,
Speaker 5: would have effectuated the change that is necessary. It is
Speaker 5: a fundamental change. Biden does not represent fundamental economic reform.
Speaker 5: He represents incremental change. He represents policies that are saying,
Speaker 5: given the way things are, I'd like to ameliorate your stress.
Speaker 5: And I believe what the Democratic Party should stand for,
Speaker 5: and what is President I would stand for is the
Speaker 5: actual end to the injustice that is causing all that stress.
Speaker 5: What the corporate is Democrats to do, including President Biden,
Speaker 5: is we want to make your life easier, to survive,
Speaker 5: easier to survive what is essentially an unjust system.
Speaker 4: We need to end the injustice.
Speaker 5: That would mean universal healthcare and medicare for all type situations,
Speaker 5: me intuition, free college, and tech school. That would mean childcare,
Speaker 5: paid family leave, guaranteed housing, guaranteed sick pay, guaranteed living wage.
Speaker 4: This ship is so far to the side.
Speaker 5: We have seventy percent of Americans who report to see
Speaker 5: INBC that they live with constant economic stress. You know,
Speaker 5: we call it a mental health crisis, but the mental
Speaker 5: health crisis is a symptom, and we need to look
Speaker 5: deeper at all these things. We need to look at
Speaker 5: cause and we cannot. There's no way to overestimate the
Speaker 5: role that economic tension and anxiety plays. You have sixty
Speaker 5: percent of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. We have
Speaker 5: one in four Americans who live with medical debt, a
Speaker 5: majority of Americans who live with debt period. You know,
Speaker 5: the American dream used to be that I can have
Speaker 5: a house with a picket fence. Now the American dream
Speaker 5: for a lot of people is that they will die
Speaker 5: having gotten out of debt.
Speaker 2: Right So, Marian, right now, there's a big debate happening
Speaker 2: right now as to whether you should run as a
Speaker 2: Democrat or whether it's more effective to run like a
Speaker 2: third party doctor Cornell West, So why are you running
Speaker 2: as a Democrat as opposed to a Cornell West kind
Speaker 2: of attacking the system? From the outside.
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, I don't think either choice is illegitimate.
Speaker 5: You know, if you look at American history, third party
Speaker 5: voices are very significant. You know, Abolition came from the
Speaker 5: Abolitionist Party, Women's suffrage came from the Women's Party.
Speaker 4: Social security came from a socialist party.
Speaker 5: Yes, so I think it's terrible the way the Democrats
Speaker 5: and the Republicans have formed an unholy alliance over the
Speaker 5: last few years, making it very difficult for third party
Speaker 5: voices to be heard. That is true, But I also
Speaker 5: believe that there was once a soul of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 5: You know, there was the Rooseveltian, unabashed, unequivocal commitment to
Speaker 5: the well being of the of the working people of
Speaker 5: the United States. We cannot allow a vision of real
Speaker 5: justice to be completely peripheralized. I'm not willing to say, Okay,
Speaker 5: two major political parties, you get it. Corporate power, corporate
Speaker 5: control peripheralize any sense of real humanitarian values when they
Speaker 5: in any way challenge the corporatus tyranny that now has
Speaker 5: hold of our country. Now, I'm not willing to say
Speaker 5: I'll just kind over here and say it, okay. Is
Speaker 5: if I want to do that. I can just write
Speaker 5: about it in books which I have. They don't mind
Speaker 5: third party candidates unless they feel that the third party
Speaker 5: candidate could actually be a threat, and perhaps that's what
Speaker 5: Cornell West will represent.
Speaker 3: Got it, Marian?
Speaker 1: As you probably heard, we interviewed here you're one of
Speaker 1: your opponents, are off K Junior, and we asked them
Speaker 1: specifically about medicare for all and his response and people
Speaker 1: can go back and watch the exact words, but it's
Speaker 1: in paraphrasing here. It was effectively in theory, I support
Speaker 1: single payer healthcare, but I think it's politically infeasible. You
Speaker 1: just laid out the domestic agenda that many people, including
Speaker 1: people on the left, but I think more broadly, would
Speaker 1: really support, including universal health care, including universal childcare, paid
Speaker 1: family leave, all of those things. But how do you
Speaker 1: get around the fact that you know you're certainly going
Speaker 1: to have you and if you have basic control of
Speaker 1: the center, you're unlikely to.
Speaker 3: Have a filibuster proof majority.
Speaker 1: You're certainly not even going to have all the Democrats
Speaker 1: on board with a more ambitious program of economic reform
Speaker 1: because of all the failures of the Democratic Party that
Speaker 1: you've laid out before. So how do you make such
Speaker 1: an important agenda actually politically feasible or is that is
Speaker 1: that a you know, legitimate critique.
Speaker 5: Well, you know, Bobby when he was here, also said
Speaker 5: in that same interview, I think I'm a free market
Speaker 5: capitalism guy.
Speaker 4: So I don't.
Speaker 5: Agree that his only problem with getting to medicare for
Speaker 5: all is that he doesn't think it's politically feasible.
Speaker 4: There's something else going on there.
Speaker 5: So this whole issue of agency capture by pharmaceutical companies,
Speaker 5: insurance companies, big food, I certainly agree with that, but
Speaker 5: there's more to it than just getting them out of office.
Speaker 5: You've got to change the economic structure. And as long
Speaker 5: as the corporate subsidies continue, as long as the tax
Speaker 5: structure continues the way it is, of course it.
Speaker 4: Will never be feasible.
Speaker 5: That's what that's you know, that's what Obama said before
Speaker 5: he went in.
Speaker 4: He said, Oh, I'm all for universal health care.
Speaker 5: Then of course, once Democrats get in power, it's just
Speaker 5: not politically feasible. You were the one, Crystal who I
Speaker 5: once heard say a phrase that just has stayed with me.
Speaker 5: We have been trained to limit our political imaginations. You
Speaker 5: don't lead from a place of what's politically feasible. A
Speaker 5: great leader leads from a place of this is what
Speaker 5: we need to do. Abolition wasn't politically feasible, The Nineteenth
Speaker 5: Amendment wasn't politically feasible. Establishing the right of people to
Speaker 5: unionize wasn't politically feasible. Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act,
Speaker 5: the segregation wasn't politically feasible. We have become a people
Speaker 5: who acquiesce so easily to just whatever.
Speaker 4: We can get. That's what Obamacare represented. Initially.
Speaker 5: He went from supporting universal health care to getting in
Speaker 5: there and was clearly told, the insurance companies will allow
Speaker 5: you to go this far. And that's what the corporate
Speaker 5: Democrats do. They try to help you out as much
Speaker 5: as they can within the space of not challenging their
Speaker 5: corporate li donors.
Speaker 4: So I'm not running.
Speaker 5: I mean, I am aware that what I am saying
Speaker 5: is completely counter to the corporatist paradigm that now rules
Speaker 5: our country. However, the issues that I'm standing on, whether
Speaker 5: it's Medicare for all, tuition free college, greater mitigation of
Speaker 5: climate disaster, and so forth, these are the views that
Speaker 5: are agreed that the majority of Americans agree with So
Speaker 5: what's happening is that our Congress acts more at the
Speaker 5: behest of the short term profits of their corporate donors
Speaker 5: than at the behest of even the will much less
Speaker 5: the safety and well being of the American people. So
Speaker 5: my candidacy opens the door of possibility. Obviously I would
Speaker 5: need more than Democrats in the House and Democrats in
Speaker 5: the Senate, because the issue is what kind of democrats
Speaker 5: if you have Manton and cinema types, but people. I
Speaker 5: hope this isn't awakening, and I think with Bobby running,
Speaker 5: with Cornell running, with my running, I think there is.
Speaker 5: It's a greater awakening going on. We don't have to
Speaker 5: accept what those people are offering, what the corporatus and
Speaker 5: of course they're giving us just Trump and Biden. Again,
Speaker 5: it's a sclerotic system, and we can expect more. We should,
Speaker 5: we should demand more, and that would mean, of course,
Speaker 5: for someone like myself, don't just I figure this how
Speaker 5: I look at it. If this country gets to a
Speaker 5: point where they would put me in office, they would
Speaker 5: also be at a point where they would be putting
Speaker 5: some congressional people and senators in.
Speaker 4: Office as well.
Speaker 5: So this has to be this has to be something
Speaker 5: where people are thinking in terms of their primaries, their
Speaker 5: congressional and Senate primaries as well.
Speaker 2: Makes sense. So we had Rfki Junior on the show.
Speaker 2: You referenced in just this disagreement on free market capitalism,
Speaker 2: polser to be believed. He's actually doing quite well. It's
Speaker 2: currently higher than you are. So why do you think
Speaker 2: that his message is resonating? What's the biggest difference? Since
Speaker 2: this is clearly enough also another significant opponent that you'll
Speaker 2: have to get over should you want to become the
Speaker 2: primary or win the primary of the Democrats.
Speaker 5: I don't think it takes anything from his message, and
Speaker 5: it's not to show any personal disrespect. But he's a man,
Speaker 5: and here's a Kennedy and anybody who doesn't see that,
Speaker 5: I think I would say it to him. I would
Speaker 5: think he'd say, yeah, Bobby's perspective about corporate capture. How
Speaker 5: as I've always said, we've become a government of the people,
Speaker 5: by the people, for the people who's moved to other corporations,
Speaker 5: by the corporations, and for the corporations. He and I
Speaker 5: agree on that. I've been saying those things myself. We
Speaker 5: have deep disagreements about Israel's comments about Israel's was telling
Speaker 5: you the other day this sounded like an APAC conference
Speaker 5: in two thousand and five. His view of the border,
Speaker 5: I mean, his views of what we should do with
Speaker 5: the border. In some ways, we're almost right of Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: So Bobby Kennedy and I have some differences to me.
Speaker 5: You know, the worst forms of oppression that I want
Speaker 5: to talk about are not being deep platformed from Instagram. Sure,
Speaker 5: the worst forms of a person that I want to
Speaker 5: talk about is the well being of the average American person.
Speaker 5: During the nineteen seventies, we had a thriving middle class
Speaker 5: in this country. The average American worker could afford a house,
Speaker 5: could afford a car, could afford a yearly vacation, could
Speaker 5: afford for one person, one member of the couple, to
Speaker 5: stay home if they wished, and they could afford to
Speaker 5: send their kids to college.
Speaker 4: There has been a.
Speaker 5: Fifty trillion dollar a massive transfer of wealth and wealth
Speaker 5: creating opportunity into the hands of one percent of the
Speaker 5: American people.
Speaker 4: That's what I want to.
Speaker 5: Talk about, and I don't think fundamentalist free market capitalism.
Speaker 4: You sort of can't have it both ways. You cannot have.
Speaker 5: A return to a thriving middle class without having a
Speaker 5: conversation about the fact that American capitalism, modern American capitalism
Speaker 5: has lost its morals.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you, though, because the fact that he's
Speaker 1: a man in a cane d isn't going to change
Speaker 1: the fact that when I'm Biden is a man in
Speaker 1: the you know, come and president also not going to change.
Speaker 1: So how do you reach to people? How do you
Speaker 1: change the polls?
Speaker 5: Listen, the American people should hear what Bobby has to say.
Speaker 5: I just want the American people also to hear what
Speaker 5: I have to say. And I'm very clear about the forces.
Speaker 5: Some of the forces that are making it very very
Speaker 5: hard for me to be heard are also working over
Speaker 5: time to make it very very hard that he.
Speaker 4: Would be heard. But he has other megaphones.
Speaker 5: You know what I'm saying, I don't have the elite bros.
Speaker 5: You know, Oh Jack, And when he was on this
Speaker 5: show talking about you know, Elon said and Jack said
Speaker 5: and jokes and you know, no, I don't have.
Speaker 4: That crop, right, So what do you have?
Speaker 5: Huh?
Speaker 3: What do you have?
Speaker 5: The people that I talk to when I'm on the
Speaker 5: on the ground, when I'm on the ground in New
Speaker 5: Hampshire when I'm on the ground in South Carolina, when
Speaker 5: I'm actually talking to people about their pain and how
Speaker 5: so much of American public policy.
Speaker 4: Contributes to that pain.
Speaker 5: So, you know, and he's he's smeared for his some
Speaker 5: views and I'm smeared for.
Speaker 4: Listen. We have a system.
Speaker 5: I've mentioned that before, this political media industrial empire. And
Speaker 5: this is why is Bobby himself has been saying. He
Speaker 5: talks about going on podcasts, talks about shows like yours.
Speaker 4: This is how we.
Speaker 5: Are getting our word out. People should hear what Bobby
Speaker 5: has to say. I should hear what I have to say.
Speaker 5: They should hear what the president has to say. That's democracy.
Speaker 5: They should hear what Cornell has to say.
Speaker 2: No disagreement here. You referenced his positions on vaccines there.
Speaker 2: Do you have a disagreement with him on the issue
Speaker 2: of vaccines. I know you expressed interest and want before
Speaker 2: for an independent review board, something that's one of his desires.
Speaker 2: But what about the underlying claims he's made here before?
Speaker 5: Well, the independent review board I do agree with, I
Speaker 5: will stand for safe vaccines.
Speaker 4: That's what he says too well, and then.
Speaker 5: He goes into some other things as well. One of
Speaker 5: the things that really upset me during the COVID vaccine
Speaker 5: was how little conversation was even allowed about treatment, whether
Speaker 5: it was ivramectin or hydro Clark queen. So I would
Speaker 5: notice that friends of mine which I, oh, you know,
Speaker 5: my doctor gave me iiromat dinner.
Speaker 4: My doctor gave me hydro Clark queen.
Speaker 5: So I realized it was this kind of elite America
Speaker 5: that was having one conversation while the CDC and the
Speaker 5: administrations were both using the media to focus this on
Speaker 5: this idea. No, it's got to be it's got to
Speaker 5: be just a vaccine. It's got to be just a vaccine,
Speaker 5: just a vaccine. And uh, I think that was wrong.
Speaker 5: You couldn't even talk about vitamin C. And there's a
Speaker 5: bigger problem that this that that incurs here. We have
Speaker 5: a dangerously high level of distrust now of the institutions
Speaker 5: on which we depend, and in many cases it is
Speaker 5: the malfeasance of these institutions which has caused so much
Speaker 5: of this distrust.
Speaker 1: So let's let's just drill down on some of the
Speaker 1: specifics here so that people understand fully your view. Do
Speaker 1: you think that the COVID vaccineans were effective at preventing
Speaker 1: severe illness and death.
Speaker 5: I think that the American people deserved to hear the truth.
Speaker 5: I think there's a very good argument for the fact
Speaker 5: that they did. I do believe that, But I also
Speaker 5: believe that there were risks that the government and governmental
Speaker 5: agencies knew about, and they did not trust the American
Speaker 5: people to make that decision for themselves.
Speaker 1: And do you see any link Have you been convinced
Speaker 1: by any evidence that would show that there's a link
Speaker 1: between autism and other childhood immunizations, which is one of
Speaker 1: the things that he I had.
Speaker 5: Not seen evidence. But remember, I'm old enough to remember
Speaker 5: that time. I remember that time. I remember Richard Lueger,
Speaker 5: who was in Indiana, a Republican senator from Indiana. I'm
Speaker 5: pretty sure that lub Yeah, he was from Indiana and
Speaker 5: his grandson. There was autism. There was a whole conversation
Speaker 5: about mercury, in particular vaccines up. There was a cluster
Speaker 5: up in San Francisco. There was a whole conversation about
Speaker 5: they didn't want to spend the money to keep the
Speaker 5: mercury cold enough. So yeah, I mean, I've heard enough
Speaker 5: stuff certainly you heard enough anecdotal stuff that I've I've
Speaker 5: always listened. I've never flipped over to anyone perspective, but
Speaker 5: I have stood, and I do stand for the kind
Speaker 5: of individual, non pharmaceutically based, non pharmaceutically funded, independent research,
Speaker 5: whether it has to do a childhood vaccine or any
Speaker 5: other vass.
Speaker 1: So, mercury was taken out in two thousand and one, right,
Speaker 1: rates of autism continued to rise.
Speaker 3: So the idea that.
Speaker 1: There was a you know, a correlation there and that
Speaker 1: equal causation that seems to have been ruled out exactly.
Speaker 1: I guess bottom line, if you know, for your kids,
Speaker 1: would you have them If you had little kids now
Speaker 1: and they were getting ready to go to school, and
Speaker 1: they had their whole schedule of immunizations, would you get
Speaker 1: them those immunizations? Are there things and in terms of
Speaker 1: your governance, are there things that you would do differently?
Speaker 3: How would your views impact your governance?
Speaker 5: Okay, So I have known women who were like PhDs
Speaker 5: in biochemistry, women who were not.
Speaker 4: Just they didn't know what they were talking about.
Speaker 5: These were scientists who were mothers who back when I
Speaker 5: was living in Los Angeles particularly, were saying, why is
Speaker 5: it that so many more, so many more of these
Speaker 5: chemicals are in ours, that there's so much more bundling
Speaker 5: compared to people in Europe. Why is it that we're
Speaker 5: taking these vaccines so close together compared to how they're
Speaker 5: giving them in Europe. And I saw firsthand how these
Speaker 5: women were demonized. I saw how they were treated like
Speaker 5: they were anti vacs. Listen, I'm running for president. I
Speaker 5: know how this system works, and I saw it last
Speaker 5: time when I ran. If you even come close to
Speaker 5: suggesting that pharmaceutical companies are not just pure as the
Speaker 5: driven snow, I see what they do to you. They've
Speaker 5: done it to me, and they did it to those women,
Speaker 5: So absolutely, I would stand for independent research what's happening here,
Speaker 5: and Bobby is absolutely right about that when it comes.
Speaker 4: To the way these industries have power.
Speaker 5: Look what's happening with our defense budget, Raytheon and Northrope,
Speaker 5: Grommanden and Boeing get to regulate themselves. We know how
Speaker 5: they're price gouging, whether it has to do with big food,
Speaker 5: big chemical.
Speaker 4: Big AG.
Speaker 5: You have guys who represent Big AG who are heading
Speaker 5: the Department of Agriculture. You have a former board member
Speaker 5: at raytheon who's heading the Defense Department. So whenever you
Speaker 5: have these agencies that theoretically are there to advocate for
Speaker 5: us but have now become double advocates, which is impossible,
Speaker 5: that's the problem. And so yes, pharmaceutical companies are given
Speaker 5: too much freerrange, and I want to see independent research,
Speaker 5: and that's the way it is.
Speaker 2: So to me, doesn't sound like a difference between you
Speaker 2: and RFK Junior, especially in terms of policy outcomes. So
Speaker 2: I'll ask you the same question that Crystal asked him,
Speaker 2: which is, how are you going to convince people, especially
Speaker 2: Democrats who are hearing a lot of what you're saying
Speaker 2: and associated with the right, Like we asked him that
Speaker 2: exact same question. And it does seem to be a
Speaker 2: thorny issue given the way that a lot of the
Speaker 2: Democratic base does feel towards the COVID vaccine, towards childhood
Speaker 2: immunizations and more. No matter what, you're going to have
Speaker 2: to convince them what you're saying is not either kugary
Speaker 2: or is not right wing explicitly coded.
Speaker 5: I think it's very sad that so many that this
Speaker 5: core sort of center what we think of now of
Speaker 5: the Democratic Party has such a codependent relationship with the DNC,
Speaker 5: such a codependent relationship with the Democratic establishment. Being a
Speaker 5: Democrat doesn't mean that you should give up your healthy skepticism.
Speaker 5: Being a Democrat shouldn't mean that you give up your
Speaker 5: healthy skepticism about Democratic leaders and Democratic presidents. That's what
Speaker 5: has happened to this party. So the Democratic Party, you're
Speaker 5: really going to be a big tent. Then the Democratic
Speaker 5: Party should also be able to include people who are
Speaker 5: saying the CDC doesn't come out looking so good in
Speaker 5: everything that happened here, and that I believe that a
Speaker 5: certain kind of healthy skepticism is part of being a
Speaker 5: good citizen, and you shouldn't give that up just because
Speaker 5: you're a Democrat and the Democratic line has become something different.
Speaker 1: You have publicly had some turmoil within your campaign. I
Speaker 1: saw a report you can confirm or deny this, that
Speaker 1: a second campaign manager has left the campaign. Can you
Speaker 1: speak to that, and can you speak to your ability
Speaker 1: to run the country when you've had trouble retaining top
Speaker 1: level staff on the campaign.
Speaker 5: I wish that breaking points could come today to a
Speaker 5: team meeting. Meet the people on our staff, talk to them,
Speaker 5: recognize the consciousness there, the passion there, the beauty there. Really,
Speaker 5: in an organizational sense, if you are tried in a
Speaker 5: court of law, there are rules of due process. Somebody
Speaker 5: accuses you, and your lawyer says, gets to cross examine them.
Speaker 4: I may ask who you work for.
Speaker 5: If somebody presents evidence against you, your lawyer gets to
Speaker 5: say to the judge that's you know, that's not okay,
Speaker 5: and the judge will say throw it out. If the
Speaker 5: judge doesn't villa something that jury could see. If you
Speaker 5: were tried in the media, particularly political rags, if you
Speaker 5: were tried in the court of political opinion, then anybody
Speaker 5: can say anything, and anybody can do anything, and you
Speaker 5: are sort of powerless, and they do that, and for
Speaker 5: whatever reason, they love doing it towards me, And so
Speaker 5: I don't know. I keep hearing the song lyric, the
Speaker 5: Simon A. Garfunkel song. I would not be convicted by
Speaker 5: a jury of my peers if anybody saw the truth
Speaker 5: of what's going on there and what has gone on,
Speaker 5: I don't believe I would not be convicted by a.
Speaker 4: Jury of my peers.
Speaker 5: Now, as far as the fact that two campaign managers,
Speaker 5: one of whom now has said I'm willing to come back,
Speaker 5: et cetera.
Speaker 4: We're fine the way we are now.
Speaker 5: Lincoln went through twelve generals before he got to Ulysses Grant.
Speaker 5: It's you know, so these narratives are are created once again.
Speaker 5: If somebody wants to come talk to my team and
Speaker 5: see how it goes. I've heard some stories about things
Speaker 5: going on in some other campaigns.
Speaker 2: Oh you should spell Hey, you're talking to millions of
Speaker 2: people right now, not who are okay?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 1: Well, lastly, Marian, you know, what is your plan to
Speaker 1: force Biden to have to debate you all, to force
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party to have to reckon with you and
Speaker 1: Bobby and anyone else who gets in the race.
Speaker 3: How do we you know?
Speaker 1: Because listen, their plan clearly right now is just to
Speaker 1: shut everyone out.
Speaker 3: And even though I think.
Speaker 1: RFK in particular, but you two have pulled higher than
Speaker 1: the Democrats expected, Biden is still on track to win today.
Speaker 1: So what does the plan look like for you going forward?
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, what really matters is what the
Speaker 5: people in New Hampshire have to say. What really matters
Speaker 5: is what the people in these other early primaries have
Speaker 5: to say. There are various ways, as Bobby himself has
Speaker 5: said there are other ways to be.
Speaker 4: Seen other than through debates with the president. It's important.
Speaker 5: I'm sure they're noticing that eight out of ten Democratic
Speaker 5: voters are saying that they would like to see debates,
Speaker 5: They would like to see someone else. And I think
Speaker 5: that if this energy continues and people keep talking about it,
Speaker 5: I think it's a very unpredictable moment.
Speaker 4: Anything could happen.
Speaker 5: And if the polls of Bobby and myself continued to rise,
Speaker 5: if the polls of the president continued to fall, poll
Speaker 5: numbers continued to fall, I wouldn't be surprised if some
Speaker 5: other Democrats jumped in, And are they going to say
Speaker 5: no debates? Then if Gavin Newsom comes in, or Pritzker
Speaker 5: comes in, or any of them come in, are they.
Speaker 4: Still going to say no debates?
Speaker 5: You know, I grew up at a time when Eugene
Speaker 5: McCarthy primary Johnson, Bobby Kennedy senior primary Johnson.
Speaker 4: No one thought it was weird. This is a democracy,
Speaker 4: You're not.
Speaker 5: Just they act like it's an anointment just because he
Speaker 5: is the incumbent. That's why we have That's why we
Speaker 5: have elections. It's not an annoytment. The people get to
Speaker 5: choose every four years, and candidate suppression is a form
Speaker 5: of voter suppression, and candidate suppression happens in various ways,
Speaker 5: and I see how that's happening here.
Speaker 2: No disagreement here, Marianne. Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 4: We appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Welcome back on the show any time.
Speaker 4: Thank you, thank you very great to thank you us.
Speaker 4: We will see you all later