TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @TomKlingenstein
@TomKlingenstein - Tom Klingenstein
The Bold Vision to Make Penn Station Great Again: A Conversation with Grand Penn Project Lead Alex Washburn. https://t.co/wXud0YuCEf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tom Klingenstein and Alex Washburn introduce "Grand Penn," a plan to rebuild Penn Station, including a new park and train hall inspired by the original 1910 station. The original Penn Station was demolished in 1964 and replaced with the current underground station.
The plan involves moving Madison Square Garden to a new arena across the street, on the site of the demolished Hotel Penn. The new train hall would feature a grand entrance on Seventh Avenue and a sky-lit space larger than Grand Central. The concourse level would be significantly expanded, rivaling Heathrow Terminal 4 in size. Above the concourse, a park the size of Bryant Park would be built.
Washburn says moving Madison Square Garden is realistic and desirable, requiring an incentive for the Dolan family, who own the Garden. The project aims to restore beauty and history, reflecting American ideals. Klingenstein says the project embodies Western civilization through civic virtue and New York daring.
The project requires leadership and a deal-maker, possibly Donald Trump, to navigate various stakeholders like Vornado. The estimated cost is $7.5 billion, the same as Governor Hochul's plan, which only renovates the underground station. The Grand Penn plan can cost the same, including a new Madison Square Garden, because building without an operating arena above is cheaper.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Tom Klingenstein. With me is Alex Washburn. We're gonna talk about a plan to rebuild the existing Penn Station, but it's much more than that. The plan calls for a new park and a grand train hall modeled after the original Penn Station. We call this project Grand 10.
Once upon a time, New York City had a train station worthy of the greatest city in America. Built in 1910, the original Penn Station was huge, confident, and bold. Built in a classical style, it was a tribute to the greatness of America. Its sheer size made it sublime, inspiring, and at the same time, humble. It was home to the gods, closer to heaven than even New York's Paula skyscraper.
Langston Hughes called it a bulwark for the soul. That was then. Sadly, in 1964, it was torn down and thrown into the swamps of the Meadowlands in what was perhaps the greatest act of architectural vandalism in American history. It was replaced by the current underground Penn Station, which is a disgrace, much hated by the public, dangerous, inefficient, fit only for rats, as one critic put it. Walking through its low cramped passageways, you must elbow your way through a thicket of strangers.
New York deserves better. Almost four years ago, I was approached by the National Civic Arts Society, an organization committed to recovering classical architecture. It was seeking funds to develop a plan to reconstruct the original Penn State. My first thought was how wonderful. My second thought was how unrealistic.
First, you would have to move and rebuild Madison Square Garden. In the unlikely event you could do this, you would then have to convince real estate owners, railroads, and a long list of city, state, and federal government agencies, each with its own agenda. Realistically, it was hopeless. And yet, for one reason or another, I had hope. Sometimes the supply is priceless.
And so I put together a team of transportation experts to see what they could come up with. The team is headed up by Alex Washburn, who was an award winning architect who began his career working on the Lincoln And Jefferson Memorial renovation, as well as several classical new buildings in Washington DC. He is the founding president of the Moynihan Station Development Corporation, which designed Moynihan Train Hall, the new Amtrak station located in the old classical post office just across from Grand Bend.
Speaker 1: Tong, thank you so much for having me here, thank you for that introduction. It when you're describing the original Penn Station, I was getting getting goosebumps.
Speaker 0: We're gonna start by playing a short video walkthrough of Grand Pen, and then I'll ask you to describe the project in more detail.
Speaker 1: Grand Penn is on the existing footprint of Penn Station. Now this is in a context of all of Midtown Manhattan. Up here to the North, have Times Square. Here to the East, you have Herald Square. To the West is the new Hudson Yards.
The Highline Park comes and touches from the South. Everything else blossomed from the 1910 the late great Penn Station that you've seen these beautiful pictures. So how do we get back to that? Back in '64 when the original station, you know, it was really it was more decapitated than it was demolished. And on top of it was placed what's now Madison Square Garden.
So what if we built a new and great arena across the street? Here in this empty lot where the Hotel Penn used to be but is now demolished. That would open up Penn Station to become Grand Penn. Let's look at it element by element. In the original Penn Station, we had the most magnificent facade on Seventh Avenue.
That was torn down, tossed into the Jersey Marshes. However, Seventh Avenue is the entrance of Penn Station, and today it is not. Let's recreate it. Let's rebuild that grand entrance on Seventh Avenue, and from there, we can enter into this next great space, the train hall. Sky lit, enormous, larger than Grand Central, over an acre of glass open to the sky.
Speaker 0: Now how does it compare in size to the new Moynihan Station?
Speaker 1: Oh it's much larger than the Moynihan Station. The Moynihan Station has 35,000 square feet of glass. We have 52,000 square feet of glass.
Speaker 0: And how about in height?
Speaker 1: The height I believe we are a 25 feet from the floor to the peak and the Moynihan Train Hall I believe is 75 feet.
Speaker 0: So let's proceed. Now we're looking I think at the train hall.
Speaker 1: Yes. So now we're looking at the train hall and and you ask what is this place? This place is the place of coming together. You know, where you mentioned earlier in your description of the way it is now that we we rush past strangers. That's because we're in in a rat warren.
We're underground. But when you're in something like this that has light, that has a sense of civic majesty in it, strangers cease to be strangers and become fellow citizens.
Speaker 0: Beneath this train hall, which is above ground, above grade. Yes. Now, beneath that is a train. Yes. Yes.
Concourse, which is where you'd wait for a train.
Speaker 1: Well, beneath this level is the concourse level. Concourse means anywhere that you can board a train. Right now, the concourse level at Penn Station is a is a warren of dead end corridors. It's very constraining, but we have opened it up, made a universal concourse that you can see from one end to the other 600,000 square feet. That is an enormous space.
Speaker 0: And that compares to what today?
Speaker 1: That that is as large as Heathrow Terminal 4 in London. One of the best transportation facilities
Speaker 0: in the So it's huge.
Speaker 1: Huge. It's huge. Purposefully. Now,
Speaker 0: this is where you'd wait for a train.
Speaker 1: Well, yes. Well, the part of our operational strategy is to remove the notion of waiting. There's boarding. So let's say your train is in an hour. You don't really wait.
You go to the wonderful retail in the train hall. You perhaps go to the new park that we'll talk about later. You will know digitally when your train is going and where it's going. But now
Speaker 0: Alex, some people
Speaker 1: Some people some
Speaker 0: people are gonna wait. And one of the things I noticed and have always noticed, I don't see any seating.
Speaker 1: We have seating. We have seating.
Speaker 0: It's just we don't see it in these pictures.
Speaker 1: Oh, no, no. We sit around escalator, every stair down is wrapped in a bench and planting. So that we do have room to sit. And we think that's an important state. Because now you know when you go to transportation designer they they take away the benches.
Speaker 0: Now now to the park.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. This enormous concourse, what does it have above it? You know, New York City is a vertical city. We have this tradition of putting parks over infrastructure. You go to Bryant Square Park in New York, a fabulous park.
So what we have done is on top of our concourse, has 32 foot high ceilings itself, on top of that there is a park the size of Bryant Park. And this is an area without parks. Think of what this park does for both the community and for the real estate around it. It creates a new address. Real desirability.
Speaker 0: The biggest question that people have I think is it really realistic to move Madison Square Garden?
Speaker 1: It is realistic. I was involved in a previous effort to move to the back of the Farley Building behind the Moynihan Train Hall.
Speaker 0: And the Farley Building is the post office.
Speaker 1: The Farley Building is a post office. Yes. Madison Square Garden has moved several times in its storied career. That's why it's called Madison Square. Even the garden part refers to an old roof garden.
So it has moved in in the past, but it always has to move to some place that makes sense. Across the street on Seventh Avenue was mentioned as a possible location. And also I was involved in a quite serious effort to move Madison Square Garden behind the Moynihan Train Hall in the back of the post office building. It went very very far and stopped perhaps two weeks short through the scandal that governor Spitzer found himself in. Client number nine if you remember that one.
So is it is it realistic? Well, let me put it another way. Is it desirable? Would the garden want to move? That's I think the land we should look at it through.
Speaker 0: Now the garden is owned by the Dolan family.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 0: Yep. So as you said they would have to be incented to move.
Speaker 1: They would have to want to move. It's a business decision. Mr. Dolan is a businessman.
Speaker 0: He has Would he have to put up any money?
Speaker 1: No. No. No. So the idea here is to remove the issue of cost here. There would be an even swap.
Simply, we build a new arena in a location that is acceptable to them, to specifications that are acceptable to them. And when it is finished, they could move across the street. No interruption. No Have
Speaker 0: you talked to the Dolans?
Speaker 1: Yes. We've spoken to their organization several times. And they I believe they would they would enjoy a phone call from a principal.
Speaker 0: Maybe a phone call from the president. Alright.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now I wanna switch gears a little bit and I wanna ask you. This is not making you rich. So why do you wanna be involved?
Speaker 1: Oh, Tom. That's a that's a I was put to work on Penn Station as a 33 year old by senator Moynihan who told me make it inevitable. And I've been working all my life in some capacity or another to make it so. But I think the real question is why are you so doggedly involved?
Speaker 0: Well, the first answer is because I don't think anybody else would be quite this silly and take this kind of risk and spend so much. Now I'm poking fun at myself a little bit. I think the reasons include beauty. The old Penn Station was beautiful and people understand that. We've done some polls.
The American citizens prefer by a wide margin classical over modern architecture, and that's regardless of political affiliation, regardless of race or ethnicity. We don't talk very much about architecture. We, as a people, there are very few even architectural critics anymore. But architecture is very important. We walk by it every day.
It has an effect on our emotions. Ugly buildings depress us, and beautiful buildings inspire us. So that's one reason. I think another reason is Penn Station, the original one, is part of our history. You know, in Europe when grand old buildings are demolished or after the civil war, civil war after, the second war when many of them were bombed.
They rebuilt them exactly as they were because they understand that these buildings are part of their history. History. And history is very, very important. It tells us who we are. It guides us.
It inspires us. Now we tend not to rebuild our own old buildings. We're very progressive, and we think new is always better than old. And that may be true in some circumstances, but not always. Partly I wanted to do it because I think it's a gift to New York and to America.
This classical architecture is uniquely America. You know, we have a sort of theoretical foundation of our country as expressed, most notably in the Declaration of Independence, where it tells us that all persons are created equal. Well, architecture, classical architecture in this case, is a physical manifestation of that theoretical foundation. And lastly, I can't explain it, lastly, reasons are not really rational. It's just something I felt I had to do for whatever reason.
A lot of things in life you can't explain, but you feel in one way or another that it's something you're almost destined to do. And I fit the Penn Station project in that category of things I felt I really have to do.
Speaker 1: You had said to me once, you are doing this to uphold Western civilization. I thought, wow. That's that's interesting. How does a Penn Station how does Penn Station or train station fit into the arc of Western civilization? And then you put two concepts together that I think nailed it.
That Western civilization is a combination of Athenian civic virtue and New York Hutspa. Without the daring of New York, there is no western civilization. It's a combination of civics and daring.
Speaker 0: We've spent three years in this planning process. People may wonder why why does it take so long?
Speaker 1: You know, senator Moynihan asked me that very same question when I was a 33 year old. And the answer is it takes so long because we make it take so long and we can make it take much less time. But that requires a leadership that we haven't had in America for a long time. It's lead, follow, or get out of the way. And with that kind of leadership we can make things happen in light speed.
So things don't have to take so long. We we have been at we have been at the very beginning of pushing the boulder.
Speaker 0: Is there more planning to do or could you start tomorrow?
Speaker 1: We we are at the point now where I believe we have to begin building. We can start. We have done wonderful plans. Thanks thanks to you. We have submitted to USDOT a full set of drawings for the concept plan.
And now with the point of making it happen through a deal, through leadership.
Speaker 0: Now I gather New York Governor Hochul has her own plan. You might describe that.
Speaker 1: Oh, god. That that plan is a it's a headache. It it compounds all the errors that we have been making since demolishing Penn Station. It is an underground plan of corridors. It is it is a plan of such low ambition cloaked in this high rhetoric that you know something fishy is going It
Speaker 0: doesn't build anything above ground. Right? It's just renovating what's below ground.
Speaker 1: It it renovates what's below ground but it compounds the problem because it it this is not a question of surfaces. This is a question of people moving through a facility and of air moving through a facility and as their engineers have dug into it. They've realized, oh my God. We don't have enough capacity with the garden on top of us to move air in emergency, to evacuate smoke. It becomes it's a very technical issue, but it's life threatening.
Speaker 0: And now what is her plan cost?
Speaker 1: Her plan costs 7 and a half billion dollars.
Speaker 0: And our plan?
Speaker 1: 7 and a half billion dollars.
Speaker 0: Now why should our plan cost the same thing when we're gonna build a new Madison Square Garden and her plan does not call for moving Madison Square Garden?
Speaker 1: Our plan costs the same including a new Madison Square Garden because it is immensely cheaper to build when you do not have an operating arena on top of you. We can use this invention called a crane. We can use machinery to move materials. When you have an operating arena above you and an operating train station below you, everything has to be done by hand and it has to be done twice.
Speaker 0: Twice because?
Speaker 1: Because you can't interrupt either the arena or the trains. So you make a temporary version while you build the more permanent version, then you swap over and you ended up building it twice.
Speaker 0: Now, as I mentioned in the introduction, there are a lot of parties that need to be convinced. The Dolans are just one. What are some of the others?
Speaker 1: So the other is a major landowner, Vornado, run by Steve Roth, a great New York businessman. And then there are seven additional smaller owners to complete the parcel of land necessary for the new garden. We have been talking to to them. I believe this deal can happen. But let me stress again, it requires somebody who really knows how to make a deal.
Speaker 0: That's where we need Trump.
Speaker 1: That's where we need Trump. Yes. You know, bureaucrats can't make a deal. It's it's just not in their DNA. And you ask why?
Maybe that's why it hasn't happened. Because this is a public private deal. It needs someone to create the deal not to just write a report or create a you know an interagency task force.
Speaker 0: Is a deal maker.
Speaker 1: We know he's a deal maker. We know he's a builder.
Speaker 0: And also I think this kind of project on this scale, this boldness would appeal to Trump. You know, he told me once that he's not just competent. He's really really competent. That was Trump in his typically modest
Speaker 1: Well, then let's make sure that this train station is really really good.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. As you said, we need a deal maker and we need a specialist in long shots. And that's what Trump has done over his career. And what could be more of a long shot than winning the presidency twice? And of course the other thing he has is access to money.
Speaker 1: That's true.
Speaker 0: Now he is rather busy, and I haven't haven't heard him talk about Penn Station. I don't even know if he knows about this plan. Folks in his department of transportation they know because you've been talking to them. Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. We took down our plans last week. I'm going again on Monday. Wonderful meeting.
Wonderful meeting. You know I I said like you probably wanna see the videos. They're beautiful and colorful and the guy said no. I wanna see the black and white drawings. We opened them and looked at them page by page.
Speaker 0: He's in the business of downsizing. Mhmm. Right? But here he has an opportunity to show his vision of the future. Now there's another thing that probably Excuse me, Alex.
Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean we're downsizing the apparatus. We're not downsizing the vision. The, you know, the big something as an architect that I learned very early on. The biggest projects get done by a team of six people. You know, just because you inflate the headcount doesn't make it any better.
So I think I think what he understands is that you can do great things with a small focused team in a public private partnership. You don't need an army of bureaucrats in order to achieve things.
Speaker 0: Now as you know, not everyone is a big fan
Speaker 1: of Trump.
Speaker 0: But my view is, look, whether you like him or hate him, when he's in the right, you stand behind him. You know, on our team, we have Republicans and Democrats, and I don't even know which is which. Mhmm. Because this is not really, I don't think, a political project.
Speaker 1: This is something we can all do together to help bring us even more together.
Speaker 0: And I think this is once in a century opportunity. We made a big big mistake when we demolished the original Penn Station. This is our chance to make amends. The chance will not come again. Alex, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you Tom.
reSee.it AI Summary
SCOTUS's 2023 decision against affirmative action was seen as a victory for merit, yet many colleges continue to evade its implications. They employ "race-neutral" strategies like socioeconomic proxies and essay loopholes to maintain diversity while undermining merit. With no oversight from SCOTUS, some institutions comply while others manipulate the system. The ongoing struggle against the Left's approach to fairness raises concerns about the future of merit in America. We need to find ways to uphold these principles and counteract the subversion of DEI initiatives.
@TomKlingenstein - Tom Klingenstein
SCOTUS struck down affirmative action in ‘23, a win for merit over race. Yet woke colleges dodge it. Gleefully. Progressives today defy justice openly. Conservatives, why are we allowing ourselves to be outfoxed? 🧵 https://t.co/uF4kTbdSYA
@TomKlingenstein - Tom Klingenstein
Higher-Ed is now sidestepping anti-DEI enforcement through “race-neutral” tricks—socioeconomic proxies, essay loopholes. Where merit should rule, they cling to diversity dogma – only REBRANDED. How do we enforce SCOTUS’ intent? 2/3
@TomKlingenstein - Tom Klingenstein
After all, SCOTUS isn’t policing this—nor is anyone. Some schools appear to do the right thing, others game it. The Left’s war on fairness marches on. If we lose merit, we lose America. How do we hold the line against this subversion? Cleary, we have not defeated DEI. 3/3
@TomKlingenstein - Tom Klingenstein
Kamala Harris chose Tim Walz as her running mate—a figure whose most important education advisor openly wants to "overthrow America." With Walz and Kamala's radical record, it's safe to assume they are both revolutionaries. These people truly want to overthrow America. https://t.co/2snarfHGSL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Critical race theory (CRT) posits that the United States is fundamentally and irreversibly racist, advocating for its overthrow. Brian Lazinski, a key figure in CRT and an education adviser to Tim Walz, explicitly states that one cannot support the U.S. while being a critical race theorist. This perspective suggests a revolutionary agenda, with Lazinski teaching Minnesota children that America is evil. The alignment between Lazinski and Walz raises concerns about their shared ideology, which some view as a threat to the nation. The notion that they are engaged in a war against America is emphasized, urging those who oppose this ideology to recognize the seriousness of the situation and prepare to defend the country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The first tenet of critical race theory is that the United States as constructed is irreversibly racist. So if the nation state as constructed is irreversibly racist, then it must be done with. It must be overthrown.
Speaker 1: This is Brian Lazanski, a professor of urban and multicultural education at Macalester College. He is a prominent national voice in the critical race theory movement. Critical race theory or CRT holds that everything in American society is racist. Everything. American values from patriotism to hard work, American institutions from the traditional family to religion, and American policies from secure borders to energy independence.
Lesinski is the foremost authority in Minnesota on CRT.
Speaker 0: And so we can't be like, oh, no. Critical race theory is just about telling our stories and diverse. It's not about that. It's about overgrowth.
Speaker 1: Moreover, he is the most important education adviser to vice presidential candidate Tim Walz. In a recently unearthed video, Lizenski said, America is irreversibly racist and must be overthrown. In case you missed his meaning, he goes on to say, you can't be a critical race theorist and be pro US.
Speaker 0: You can't be a critical race theorist and be pro US.
Speaker 1: It doesn't get any more explicit than this. Those of us who follow these things knew perfectly well that CRT aims to destroy America, but we had never heard a prominent advocate of CRT say it so explicitly. Now we have. Does not send shivers down your spine? Is an ignorant child who has not thought 30 seconds about what would happen if he would succeed in pulling down this great country.
Lesinski may be ignorant. He may even be a moron, but he is a powerful moron, and he and his accomplices have the ability to do great harm if we allow them. Leszynski is not on the fringes of the Wall's administration. Rather, he is at the center of Wall's education program, which in turn is at the center of Walt's agenda. At Walt's direction, Luzinski is teaching Minnesota children that America is evil and must be overthrown.
Speaker 0: Funny that they, you know, they don't understand critical race theory, but they actually tell some truth when they're like, yeah. It is anti state.
Speaker 1: This makes Luzinski a revolutionary. And as there is very little daylight between Leszynski and Tim Waltz, it makes Waltz a revolutionary. What do we make of the fact that Kamala chose as her running mate a man who wants to overthrow America? Could it be that she didn't know who she was choosing? No, it couldn't be.
She knows perfectly well Waltz wants to overthrow America. After all, she chose him over more qualified candidates precisely because his ideology was the most compatible with hers. It is sometimes the case that a presidential candidate fails to detect some weakness in their running mate, personal failings or past support for policies the presidential candidate proposes. But a candidate does not choose a revolutionary running mate by accident. One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness.
From Kamala's perspective, and we must understand Kamala's perspective, she chose a man who wants to improve America in the same way she wants to approve it. But their idea of improving is identical to overthrowing. Former President Trump regularly says, and quite rightly that the enemy within is far more dangerous than China and other enemies without. But we have not had a face of the enemy within. Now we do.
The face of the enemy within is Brian. Walt and Harris have declared war on America. While we on the right still think it is politics as usual, we don't know we are in a war. You can't win a war if you don't know you're in one. It's well past time that we engage the enemy.
And in so doing, be prepared to give our last full measure of devotion so the greatest country in the history of mankind shall not perish.
@TomKlingenstein - Tom Klingenstein
The enemy from within is far more dangerous than any foreign threat. Watch my interview with @realdonaldtrump. https://t.co/NieA4Vbb97
Video Transcript AI Summary
Assertiveness is crucial in leadership, especially in the military, where some leaders may be ineffective. The focus should be on choosing a leader who aims to strengthen America rather than one who may lead to its decline. Authenticity in politics is rare, and it's important to have leaders who can assertively dismiss unfounded accusations of racism. The real enemy is not just external but also internal, with weak leadership hindering progress. Republicans need to unite and fight back against election cheating and ineffective policies. Ultimately, it's about having capable leaders who can navigate challenges and assert their policies effectively.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's another thing you're good at, a virtue, assert. And in war, asserting is more important than explaining. Woke military. What are you gonna do?
Speaker 1: Well, the military is not woke. Some of the really foolish leaders on the top are woke, but I took out ISIS, and there was nothing woke about it. I dealt with a general. You could put him and his men in a room and scream woke at them for 10 years and they'd walk out and they wouldn't
Speaker 0: move forward. A bunch of generals at the top that are wrecked and you're gonna get rid you'd get rid of them.
Speaker 1: I get rid of them so fast and I know who they are. They're weak, ineffective people and they are actually woke. I think they actually believe it. It was I was told in Washington it would take at least 4 or 5 years and we probably couldn't do it. I did it in 4 weeks.
Speaker 0: Change gears a little.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: There are a lot of people out there, Republicans, modern Democrats, who say, we're not gonna vote for Trump because we don't like him. Right? Now my response to that is who cares whether you like the guy? Right? This isn't a choice of who you want for dinner.
It's not a choice even of who has the best character.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: What you're being asked to decide is whether you want a man who wants to save and make America great and a woman who will, whether by accident or not, destroy us. That's it.
Speaker 1: So first of all, she's a disaster. If she becomes president, I think Israel's gonna be wiped off the face of the earth very quickly. I think things are gonna happen at a level that we've never seen before.
Speaker 0: There are reports that the ABC debate team coordinated with Kamala's team.
Speaker 1: Her friend is the head of the ABC, I think, news division or whatever. Her best friend. His best friend is her husband.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: They met through these people. And I oh, I have absolutely no idea because those those answers, not good memory, but those answers were sort of semi memorized. In fact, on occasion, she'd get out of kilter and she'd give the wrong answer to the wrong question. That's that's what we've got. No.
I was but but even worse than that, and that's bad. You know? That's bad. But they would interrupt me every time, and I said, what's going on here? And I had a choice.
During the debate, I was gonna say, like, I was gonna hit them hard, but I wanted to be elegant. I wanted to say, let's try and forget about it. Because I know if I hit them, they'll say, oh, he played into their hands. You know, they always like to say that. If I fight for myself, for instance, if they say something negative and I try and correct them just quickly, I don't wanna waste a lot of time on it because usually it's nonsense, they say, oh, he played right into a hat.
I didn't play into anybody's hands.
Speaker 0: I want a one word answer.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Are you capable of one word?
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, sometimes you am I capable if it's doable?
Speaker 0: Okay. Kamala says vote for her, and you're voting for joy.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: What's the one word counterpart? Competence. Competence.
Speaker 1: But real competence. Real, real competence. Not just he's he's sort of a competent person. No. Real competence.
Speaker 0: Let's change subjects. Republican convention, the highlight, of course, was your granddaughter. And I thought a related highlight was actually your adoring look at your granddaughter, that it's a kind of look that a grandfather has that you can't fake. Right? It's kind of like when your smaller granddaughter got up in your knee.
Kids don't do that unless they're comfortable. So I thought I thought that was very sweet actually. It inspires me to ask when she said, he tries to get into my head, how do you do that?
Speaker 1: Well, she's a very competent person and a very smart person and she's a great athlete. She's a great golfer. She's actually a great golfer, not just like, oh, you know.
Speaker 0: But not quite as good as you are yet.
Speaker 1: I hope not. No. I actually hope so. I want her to be much better than me if that's doable. It's you know, the man has an advantage even though some would like to say men playing in women's sports.
Okay? But, but she's really good and, and highly competitive. I thought it was very cute when she said that. No. But, you know, I'm not But what do you do?
Speaker 0: Do you know what you you're not gonna tell me?
Speaker 1: I wanna I wanna try to beat her. Always wanna try and beat her, and I think that's the best thing I can do for her because she's a competitor.
Speaker 0: And also it's true to your character.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I saw a movie years ago, Mommy Dearest. Now I don't wanna be that. You understand that where the mother was ruthless in the way now I don't know if it was it was about an actress who from Hollywood. You know the whole story, I think.
It was sort of a great movie. But, it was where the mother was just ruthless in defeating the daughter. She wanted to defeat her. She wanted to bury her. She wanted to just and no.
It's not that. But but, you know, you wanna be competitive, and you wanna have fun. Now sometimes somebody can't
Speaker 0: be competitive. It reminds me of one of your virtues. I have written in the past, as you know, about your virtues, not policy, but rather intangible attributes. People say, about you, I love these policies, but I don't like the rest of it. And that's got it backwards.
It's the rest of you. Anybody can duplicate your policies and many people do, but there's no one who can match your character. And one aspect of your character that I think you revealed just there is authenticity. If you get an email from president Trump, you know it's from president Trump. Mhmm.
And that no assistant said it because only president Trump can talk the way you do. Whether you're on the golf course with your granddaughter or with me or with anybody, you're the same. You may not like you, but you know it's you. And authenticity, I think, in politics is very rare.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it is rare. And, you know, you have so many phonies. You have so many people. You say, what are they doing? Why would they be doing that?
And they don't believe what they're doing in the first place. But it's interesting because you mentioned policy. So a lot of people have said, we love his policy, but we don't like him. I actually think I'm a nice guy. I actually have good relationships with people when they get to know me.
But one of the thing things is that I'm time constrained. I can't take a lot of time in some of the niceties because I'm doing trying to do a job, whatever it may be. But there's a certain senator who you wouldn't like because he tends to be he's a republican, but he tends to be somewhat liberal, but he's a good man. He is, generally right about a lot of things, but he tends to be, very, a little bit on the liberal side for where he is. Okay?
He said, wait a minute. You don't understand about the policy. Trump policy doesn't work if Trump's not doing it. And he gives the example of, I have a policy, and then I call up the leader of a country, and I force the policy down their throat. Most people can't do that.
They can't force policy down. When France put a tax on our country, and they wouldn't under any circumstance, they wouldn't for Mnuchin, for all of these smart guys you have working for you, They wouldn't do anything about it. I called them and I said, oh, you're gonna do it. 100%, you're gonna do it. No.
No. I cannot do it. Tim McCrone, nice guy. You know? He's a wise guy, and he likes France, but he's a nice guy.
I said, no. No. You're gonna do it. But it was approved already by our the equivalent of legislature, right, by our parliament. But it was approved already.
He said, it doesn't matter if it was approved. You're gonna do it. I said, if you don't do it, I'm gonna charge you a 100% tariff on every wine and every bottle of champagne that you send into our country. And I I don't wanna take a lot of time, but he essentially said, I would be really very much inclined. I said, don't be inclined.
Are you gonna take the tax off or not? He said, I will take the tax off immediately. So they all had my policy. Nobody was able to get it done, but I got it done. So it's not just policy.
Speaker 0: I think you're right. I'm jumping all up.
Speaker 1: Yes. You go ahead.
Speaker 0: I think we're in a war. Okay? And at a philosophical level, what makes it a war is the two sides have different understandings of justice. One side, our side believes in individual merit. Their side believes in group quotas.
Those don't mix. You can't admit people to school based on merit and quotas. Right? Philosophically, right, theoretically, that's what makes it a war. And then there's all kinds of evidence, right, that the other side is trying to destroy America.
Open borders, foreign energy dependence, educating Chinese nationals will go back to China.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: Quotas everywhere. Teaching about America is, racist. But that's the number one thing. So the first point is we're in a war. We need a warrior.
Right? You're a wartime president. You may not be some other type president, but you're a wartime president. And I think one of the things that we have to recognize is that the key weapon they have is very simple. They say we're racist.
They say we're evil, and that provides them the justification for overturning, America. And as I said to you earlier, one of your great virtues, part of the rest of you that people don't attend enough to, is that you don't have white guilt. And when people say America is racist, you can say horsemen, and that's what we have to do. There are no politicians other than you that I'm aware of who are willing to simply assertively dismiss. There's another thing, by the way, that you're good at, a virtue.
Asserting, not explaining. You're not a great explainer. You're an asserter. And in war, asserting is more important than explaining. So I think the point I wanted to make and a point to the audience is that the absence of white guilt and your ability, therefore, to rebut the charge that were racist is absolutely essential.
Speaker 1: Well, that's very differently explained than anybody I've heard, and it's very true. And what you're saying is and, I mean, I watch some of these very weak kneed people just cower at the thought of being called a racist. They call everybody a racist. You always know that's their final. When you're winning, that means they start calling you racist.
Speaker 0: I think it would be helpful for you to actually more often make the claim we're not racist. You make the claim that met that, the media is fake. You gave us a word. Didn't have to explain it. Everybody knew the media is vague.
Speaker 1: Great word you have to say.
Speaker 0: It is a good word. But what
Speaker 1: It's not strong enough, though. It was a great word. No. It was a great word. It's not strong.
Speaker 0: Would you have a you wanna amend it?
Speaker 1: They're corrupt.
Speaker 0: My point is you gave permission for other people to say it.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Not just you say it now. A lot of people say it, and it's the same thing with we're not racist. We you know, people the average person does think they're racist. They don't think they have white privilege. The elite may think that, but not the average person where I live in Maine.
Right? But they need their leaders to confirm it.
Speaker 1: But I've seen people when they're called racist, strong politicians, strong men generally, they cower. They, oh, they call they they are so afraid of being called racist that they'll do anything for the other side. And I think that's a little
Speaker 0: bit what
Speaker 1: you're saying. But what I say is a little bit different and maybe a little bit earlier in the process, We have enemies outside, but we also have the enemy from within. And I say, and I've said it for a long time, you know, I took 100 of 1,000,000,000 out of China, and we got along we got along fine. Other than COVID, where I that was a bridge too far as far as I was concerned. But I took 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars from China.
We got along great. I made a trade deal with China. I don't even talk about it. It was one of the greatest deals ever made. Economically, $50,000,000,000 a year in purchasing of our product.
Nobody talks about it. And that's okay. Because once COVID came, I don't talk about anything having to do. It was a it was really a bridge too far. But we have the outside enemy, and we have the enemy from within.
And I say that the enemy from within is far more dangerous than the outside enemy because if you have a capable president, I'll always be able to get along with Russia, China
Speaker 0: See, what with Kim Jong un what I think you even ought to say more than you do. So it's the let me ask this question.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: I keep I'm very interruptions.
Speaker 1: No. No. You are, and I love that because a lot of people aren't. And you go off in tang you don't let anybody go off on a tangent, and I will not
Speaker 0: let you go off on
Speaker 1: a tangent, but you go on.
Speaker 0: You know, you're tough.
Speaker 1: Go you go ahead.
Speaker 0: Now you're distracting me. What was I talking about?
Speaker 1: The enemy from within.
Speaker 0: We need a name for the enemy. Now I've taken it to call it commonwealthism. We don't even have a name for our enemy regime. We know who China is. Can you imagine fighting a war if you can't name the enemy?
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And you're the one. You are our namer in chief. Right? You're the great namer.
Speaker 1: I've given a lot of great names. I think so.
Speaker 0: Okay. But now you need one. Right.
Speaker 1: I'm not totally satisfied with comrade because a lot of people don't quite understand what it means. She is a Marxist. She's a communist. She's a fascist, and she's not very smart. And these are bad things.
And by the way, if she ever won, my life won't be so great in this country. But I don't care. I don't care. We have to explain
Speaker 0: to this
Speaker 1: woman. We have to explain who this woman is. This woman is a disaster.
Speaker 0: But you got to explain that this woman is part of a movement. Right?
Speaker 1: It's true.
Speaker 0: It's not Nazism. Bad movement. It's not communism exactly. No. Right?
But you have to name
Speaker 1: It's actually stupidism, if you think. Okay. Because when you think about
Speaker 0: it Maybe that's what
Speaker 1: they're doing is so stupid. The open border who wants an open border where tens of millions of people have come in here from other countries? Outbound, communist. I've usually put some moniker on on opponents, if I can. Like, Pocahontas is a good name because she said she was an Indian and she wasn't, so I apologized to the real Pocahontas.
They they demanded that I apologize to Pocahontas, so I did, to the real Pocahontas. But but there are great names, and a lot of them I can't mention because they're Republicans who I did during my little trials and tribulations in the primaries.
Speaker 0: Well, my only advice is get with a name for the purpose
Speaker 1: Would you like comrade? Yeah. It's not bad.
Speaker 0: It's it and and it's accurate.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's pretty accurate. I think it's pretty accurate.
Speaker 0: And so if she's comrade, then the movement of which she is nominally the head of is commalism or communist. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, okay. But choose. Well, comrade means, you know, it means she's she's into that whole sect.
Speaker 0: Right. But comrade just refers to her.
Speaker 1: Correct. That's right.
Speaker 0: And I think it's important to point out that she's the head, at least nominal with the heads, of a movement.
Speaker 1: But I don't think she is the head. That's the Well,
Speaker 0: I don't need I
Speaker 1: don't think she is the head. There are other people behind her that are telling her what to do.
Speaker 0: I agree. Now because I don't like
Speaker 1: She shouldn't be allowed to run. She got no votes. This was a a coup. This was just like a nice, hard South American coup, but there was no bribe
Speaker 0: You know, here here here's the real coup that nobody talks about. Your administration was overthrown. Nothing to do with vote fraud. Leave that aside. All the character assassinations, the bogus investigations, lies, frauds, impeachment, that constitutes a coup, right in front of our face.
And I think people you and Republicans ought to say that. And when they say to you, gee, we worry about Trump because he's gonna affect the coup, the response is, yeah, but you guys already affected the coup. Right? It was a
Speaker 1: coup. You know it better than anybody, and it's very interesting because your writings, and I read your things. And, I don't know that much about you. As soon as I read your first statement about me, I said, this guy's got it figured. So peep people don't understand what they did.
And the problem we have, we have a lot of weak people in the Republican party. They're not willing to play the game with the same level of ferocity that the Democrats play the game. Adam Shifty Schiff is a truly bad guy. He's a crooked guy. The Russian
Speaker 0: See, that's how we have to understand we're in a war. We're in a war. War, you play by different rules. And you don't compromise because there's no basis for compromise. And let me get back to the debate.
Republicans criticized you. Some of them. Right?
Speaker 1: And some some love me.
Speaker 0: Right. But
Speaker 1: And they still do.
Speaker 0: Republicans shouldn't be criticized. You're our man.
Speaker 1: Well, we can't help it. Mitt Romney is Mitt Romney. He's a bad guy.
Speaker 0: But I I all I'm saying is when you're in a war, right, you defend your commander in chief. Right?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm always saying that the Republicans don't stick together like they now I tell you what, on impeachment hoaxes, they stuck together. They were great to me. I actually had a unanimous in the house, which is unheard of, on outside of Romney, who actually only voted half half a vote, if you can believe it. But I had unanimous in the senate. They stuck together for that.
That was a very important thing because it was a hoax. They're all hoaxes. Everything's a hoax. Russia, Russia, Russia was a hoax. They do that.
And what they do is they distract you from doing things to our country that are great. As as they say, make America great again because you're fighting. But the Republicans treat and I'm not talking about for me just if you look over the last 50 years, the Republicans don't stick the way the Democrats do. The Democrats are willing to go for really horrible policy. I think, generally speaking, their policy is horrible.
Nancy Pelosi is a horrible human being. I know her very well. She's a sick, horrible person, but she gets people to stick together. You know, she gets them to stick together for bad things. These are bad people.
What they do to our country, these are very bad people, and I can name a lot of them on the other side. The Republicans have to get tougher. For instance, they cheat like hell in elections. We have a thing called the SAVE Act. It's not the end all, but it makes it a little bit tougher.
They just approve something where the SAVE Act comes up after the election. I said, wait a minute. You just read about it yesterday. They approved and they extended. They did a continuing resolution, of course, because they always do.
They just go on and on. And we have a thing attached to the continuing resolution called the SAVE Act. It has to do with elections, which are taking place right now. They approve and and do the continuing resolution where the SAVE Act is going to be approved probably, but sometime after the election. What the hell good does that do us?
So it's so disappointing. They don't fight like they should fight. Their policies actually, the Republican policies are good. You're a very smart man. I know for a fact that you're a very rich man.
Why the hell do you do this?
Speaker 0: Probably for the same reason. Same Same
Speaker 1: reason I do it.
Speaker 0: You know, I think this is very important. Yeah. I think I have something to offer. Right? Like you, I don't have quite what you have to offer, but I have a particular constellation of skills, and I have resources, and I have something of a platform so I can contribute.
And this is my opportunity.
Speaker 1: Are you a golfer? I am. Do you play well?
Speaker 0: Not as well as you do.
Speaker 1: Well, will you play golf with me at the appropriate time?
Speaker 0: Well, that's very nice of you, but I think I'll pass.
Speaker 1: Because you don't wanna be shot at. I think I'll lose a lot of golf games. You know, to be honest with you, I'm noticing people well, you know, people that love playing golf with me, they're saying, gee, I'd love to, but I'm not feeling so well today. Now I always say golf is a very dangerous game, and I've proven that. Right?
Speaker 0: Yes. You have. Well, I hope this I hope your security is top notch.
Speaker 1: I think it is. I and I tell you, I think they did a great job on the second situation where I really do. To to have somebody pick up the barrel of a gun was pretty good. You know, somebody else is walking down the fairway looking at the weather. Okay?
Isn't it a beautiful day? And this guy took out his gun and he started shooting, and that guy ran, and then he was caught. But, it's very heavy. Well, you're gonna see that today because you're coming with me to North Carolina.
Speaker 0: I'm really looking forward.
Speaker 1: See more machine guns on the tops of buildings than you've ever seen before.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm very I'm very happy with it. Good. Happy with it.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: That's a different kind of an interview. But this guy, I'm not gonna argue with this guy because he's one smart cookie. Thank you. Let's go have some fun.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay?
@TomKlingenstein - Tom Klingenstein
Trump's Virtues https://t.co/v0Bw6hBfWD
Video Transcript AI Summary
Now that Trump is the Republican nominee for 2024, it's crucial for all Republicans to unite behind him. We are in a battle against the "woke regime," which threatens America. The key is not whether Trump is a perfect conservative but whether he understands the war we are in and knows how to win it. Trump recognizes the dangers of the group quota regime and fights for American cohesion, rejecting the narrative of systemic racism. His supporters, who feel connected to him, see him as a fighter for their values. Trump's unconventional approach and determination to challenge the deep state make him the leader we need to reclaim America. His presence inspires hope, suggesting that we are still the "almost chosen people."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now that president Trump is the Republican nominee for president in 2024, It's time for Republicans, including those who doubt him or even can't stand him, to get behind him. The Times demand it. We are in a war fighting an enemy of revolutionaries that kick and spit on America. I call our enemy the woke regime or the group quota regime. This war is a contest between those who love America and those who hate it, but we do not have a commander in chief.
You can't win a war without one. We shouldn't much care whether our commander in chief is a real conservative, whether he is a role model for children or says lots of silly things or whether he is modest or dignified. What we should care about is whether he knows we are in a war, knows who the enemy is, and knows how to win. Trump does. His policies are important, but not as important as the rest of him.
Trump grasps the essential things. He understands the group quota regime is evil. Quarter regime is evil and will not stop until it destroys America. He is a fighter, bold, brave, and decisive, who has confidence Trump says in a bet, we have our culture. Trump says in a fact, we have our culture.
It's exceptional, and that's the way we wanna keep it. And we won't keep it if we usher in millions of immigrants with cultures different from our own. Trump knows his job is to protect Americans and just Americans. Protect them not just from enemies abroad, but from the woke globalists within. He knows that America does not need more diversity.
It needs more cohesion. The woke radicals tell the Trump voters they are threat to democracy. Think about that. They're saying you Trumpsters are a threat to democracy. The woke radicals also tell us ad nauseam that America is systemically racist.
Trump knows this is deadly nonsense, and he says so. Discharge of systemic racism bounces off Trump because he has no white guilt or any guilt for that matter. Trump tells his supporters what they already know. They are not racist and they do not have white privilege. The woke radical shut up those who disagree.
Trump will not be shut up. If they manage to put him in jail, he will still roar like a lion. The woke radicals have the moral arrogance of fanatics. Trump, God bless him, knows we are all sinners. Trump rejects the utopian fanaticism of the woke radicals.
He is a businessman who takes the world on its own terms and navigates by facts and common sense. Trump's base knows firsthand the America that Trump wants to recover. They love him, and they know he loves them. They will fight for him because they know he will fight for them. Trump speaks to his supporters as fellow citizens without any condescension or poll tested BS.
Despite his 1,000,000,000, he is one of them, an outsider looking in, a man who takes ketchup on a steak, and is as disgusted as they are with the anti America elite. This natural appeal has molded everyday patriotic Americans into an army. We cannot stop the left's revolution and retake the nation without these men and women. Unlike most conservatives, they will actually fight for America, but they follow Trump. Without him, they stay home.
With him, they are united and determined. At his rallies, his audience invariably breaks into chants of USA USA. In these moments, Trump and his audience mutually pledged to each other their fidelity and their sacred honor. His enemies hate him with an indescribable fierceness. Another Hitler, they say, elect him and he will be a dictator.
We should take this hysteria as reason for hope. The America haters rightly fear that Trump and his party are on the threshold of a successful counterrevolution. Trump hates his enemies every bit as much as they hate him. His enemies are America's enemies. Trump is the most towering figure of our time.
He has changed politics, not just in America, but in the west. If we are to take back America, we need someone who is unmovable, who has proven that he can stand up against the immensely powerful army of woke modernity that will attack him with all its might, someone who will go after the deep state without pity or compassion, and someone who has the conviction that America is still the last best hope of Earth. That someone is Trump. Trump, the politician, came out of the blue, an unconventional commander against an unconventional enemy. Almost as president at any other time, Trump fits this turbulent moment to a tee.
Is it too much to wonder whether the appearance of this most unconventional man is providential? Lincoln spoke of Americans as the almost chosen people. Trump gives us hope that the god who was never forsaken is almost chosen people will not do so now. Do my best. Thank you.
@TomKlingenstein - Tom Klingenstein
Kamala's ideology is "stupidism". Watch my interview with President Trump. https://t.co/553AcwvN79
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's a distinction between asserting and explaining, especially in war. The military isn't "woke," but some leaders are ineffective. The focus should be on choosing a leader who aims to make America great, not one who could lead to its destruction. Kamala Harris is seen as a disaster, and her connections raise concerns about her competence. Authenticity in politics is rare, and many politicians lack genuine character. The real enemy is not just external but also internal, with weak Republicans failing to unite against the opposition. The importance of naming the enemy is emphasized, and there's a call for Republicans to fight harder against election cheating. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the need for strong leadership and a united front against those undermining America.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's another thing you're good at, a virtue, assert. And in war, asserting is more important than explaining. Woke military. What are you gonna do?
Speaker 1: Well, the military is not woke. Some of the really foolish leaders on the top are woke, but I took out ISIS, and there was nothing woke about it. I dealt with a general. You could put him and his men in a room and scream woke at them for 10 years and they'd walk out and they wouldn't
Speaker 0: move forward. A bunch of generals at the top that are wrecked and you're gonna get rid you'd get rid of them.
Speaker 1: I get rid of them so fast and I know who they are. They're weak, ineffective people and they are actually woke. I think they actually believe it. It was I was told in Washington it would take at least 4 or 5 years and we probably couldn't do it. I did it in 4 weeks.
Speaker 0: Change gears a little.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: There are a lot of people out there, Republicans, modern Democrats, who say, we're not gonna vote for Trump because we don't like him. Right? Now my response to that is who cares whether you like the guy? Right? This isn't a choice of who you want for dinner.
It's not a choice even of who has the best character.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: What you're being asked to decide is whether you want a man who wants to save and make America great and a woman who will, whether by accident or not, destroy us. That's it.
Speaker 1: So first of all, she's a disaster. If she becomes president, I think Israel's gonna be wiped off the face of the earth very quickly. I think things are gonna happen at a level that we've never seen before.
Speaker 0: There are reports that the ABC debate team coordinated with Kamala's team.
Speaker 1: Her friend is the head of the ABC, I think, news division or whatever. Her best friend. His best friend is her husband.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: They met through these people. And I oh, I have absolutely no idea because those those answers, not good memory, but those answers were sort of semi memorized. In fact, on occasion, she'd get out of kilter and she'd give the wrong answer to the wrong question. That's that's what we've got. No.
I was but but even worse than that, and that's bad. You know? That's bad. But they would interrupt me every time, and I said, what's going on here? And I had a choice.
During the debate, I was gonna say, like, I was gonna hit them hard, but I wanted to be elegant. I wanted to say, let's try and forget about it. Because I know if I hit them, they'll say, oh, he played into their hands. You know, they always like to say that. If I fight for myself, for instance, if they say something negative and I try and correct them just quickly, I don't wanna waste a lot of time on it because usually it's nonsense, they say, oh, he played right into a hat.
I didn't play into anybody's hands.
Speaker 0: I want a one word answer.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Are you capable of one word?
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, sometimes you am I capable if it's doable?
Speaker 0: Okay. Kamala says vote for her, and you're voting for joy.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: What's the one word counterpart? Competence. Competence.
Speaker 1: But real competence. Real, real competence. Not just he's he's sort of a competent person. No. Real competence.
Speaker 0: Let's change subjects. Republican convention, the highlight, of course, was your granddaughter. And I thought a related highlight was actually your adoring look at your granddaughter, that it's a kind of look that a grandfather has that you can't fake. Right? It's kind of like when your smaller granddaughter got up in your knee.
Kids don't do that unless they're comfortable. So I thought I thought that was very sweet actually. It inspires me to ask when she said, he tries to get into my head, how do you do that?
Speaker 1: Well, she's a very competent person and a very smart person and she's a great athlete. She's a great golfer. She's actually a great golfer, not just like, oh, you know.
Speaker 0: But not quite as good as you are yet.
Speaker 1: I hope not. No. I actually hope so. I want her to be much better than me if that's doable. It's you know, the man has an advantage even though some would like to say men playing in women's sports.
Okay? But, but she's really good and, and highly competitive. I thought it was very cute when she said that. No. But, you know, I'm not But what do you do?
Speaker 0: Do you know what you you're not gonna tell me?
Speaker 1: I wanna I wanna try to beat her. Always wanna try and beat her, and I think that's the best thing I can do for her because she's a competitor.
Speaker 0: And also it's true to your character.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I saw a movie years ago, Mommy Dearest. Now I don't wanna be that. You understand that where the mother was ruthless in the way now I don't know if it was it was about an actress who from Hollywood. You know the whole story, I think.
It was sort of a great movie. But, it was where the mother was just ruthless in defeating the daughter. She wanted to defeat her. She wanted to bury her. She wanted to just and no.
It's not that. But but, you know, you wanna be competitive, and you wanna have fun. Now sometimes somebody can't
Speaker 0: be competitive. It reminds me of one of your virtues. I have written in the past, as you know, about your virtues, not policy, but rather intangible attributes. People say, about you, I love these policies, but I don't like the rest of it. And that's got it backwards.
It's the rest of you. Anybody can duplicate your policies and many people do, but there's no one who can match your character. And one aspect of your character that I think you revealed just there is authenticity. If you get an email from president Trump, you know it's from president Trump. Mhmm.
And that no assistant said it because only president Trump can talk the way you do. Whether you're on the golf course with your granddaughter or with me or with anybody, you're the same. You may not like you, but you know it's you. And authenticity, I think, in politics is very rare.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it is rare. And, you know, you have so many phonies. You have so many people. You say, what are they doing? Why would they be doing that?
And they don't believe what they're doing in the first place. But it's interesting because you mentioned policy. So a lot of people have said, we love his policy, but we don't like him. I actually think I'm a nice guy. I actually have good relationships with people when they get to know me.
But one of the thing things is that I'm time constrained. I can't take a lot of time in some of the niceties because I'm doing trying to do a job, whatever it may be. But there's a certain senator who you wouldn't like because he tends to be he's a republican, but he tends to be somewhat liberal, but he's a good man. He is, generally right about a lot of things, but he tends to be, very, a little bit on the liberal side for where he is. Okay?
He said, wait a minute. You don't understand about the policy. Trump policy doesn't work if Trump's not doing it. And he gives the example of, I have a policy, and then I call up the leader of a country, and I force the policy down their throat. Most people can't do that.
They can't force policy down. When France put a tax on our country, and they wouldn't under any circumstance, they wouldn't for Mnuchin, for all of these smart guys you have working for you, They wouldn't do anything about it. I called them and I said, oh, you're gonna do it. 100%, you're gonna do it. No.
No. I cannot do it. Tim McCrone, nice guy. You know? He's a wise guy, and he likes France, but he's a nice guy.
I said, no. No. You're gonna do it. But it was approved already by our the equivalent of legislature, right, by our parliament. But it was approved already.
He said, it doesn't matter if it was approved. You're gonna do it. I said, if you don't do it, I'm gonna charge you a 100% tariff on every wine and every bottle of champagne that you send into our country. And I I don't wanna take a lot of time, but he essentially said, I would be really very much inclined. I said, don't be inclined.
Are you gonna take the tax off or not? He said, I will take the tax off immediately. So they all had my policy. Nobody was able to get it done, but I got it done. So it's not just policy.
Speaker 0: I think you're right. I'm jumping all up.
Speaker 1: Yes. You go ahead.
Speaker 0: I think we're in a war. Okay? And at a philosophical level, what makes it a war is the two sides have different understandings of justice. One side, our side believes in individual merit. Their side believes in group quotas.
Those don't mix. You can't admit people to school based on merit and quotas. Right? Philosophically, right, theoretically, that's what makes it a war. And then there's all kinds of evidence, right, that the other side is trying to destroy America.
Open borders, foreign energy dependence, educating Chinese nationals will go back to China.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: Quotas everywhere. Teaching about America is, racist. But that's the number one thing. So the first point is we're in a war. We need a warrior.
Right? You're a wartime president. You may not be some other type president, but you're a wartime president. And I think one of the things that we have to recognize is that the key weapon they have is very simple. They say we're racist.
They say we're evil, and that provides them the justification for overturning, America. And as I said to you earlier, one of your great virtues, part of the rest of you that people don't attend enough to, is that you don't have white guilt. And when people say America is racist, you can say horsemen, and that's what we have to do. There are no politicians other than you that I'm aware of who are willing to simply assertively dismiss. There's another thing, by the way, that you're good at, a virtue.
Asserting, not explaining. You're not a great explainer. You're an asserter. And in war, asserting is more important than explaining. So I think the point I wanted to make and a point to the audience is that the absence of white guilt and your ability, therefore, to rebut the charge that were racist is absolutely essential.
Speaker 1: Well, that's very differently explained than anybody I've heard, and it's very true. And what you're saying is and, I mean, I watch some of these very weak kneed people just cower at the thought of being called a racist. They call everybody a racist. You always know that's their final. When you're winning, that means they start calling you racist.
Speaker 0: I think it would be helpful for you to actually more often make the claim we're not racist. You make the claim that met that, the media is fake. You gave us a word. Didn't have to explain it. Everybody knew the media is vague.
Speaker 1: Great word you have to say.
Speaker 0: It is a good word. But what
Speaker 1: It's not strong enough, though. It was a great word. No. It was a great word. It's not strong.
Speaker 0: Would you have a you wanna amend it?
Speaker 1: They're corrupt.
Speaker 0: My point is you gave permission for other people to say it.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Not just you say it now. A lot of people say it, and it's the same thing with we're not racist. We you know, people the average person does think they're racist. They don't think they have white privilege. The elite may think that, but not the average person where I live in Maine.
Right? But they need their leaders to confirm it.
Speaker 1: But I've seen people when they're called racist, strong politicians, strong men generally, they cower. They, oh, they call they they are so afraid of being called racist that they'll do anything for the other side. And I think that's a little
Speaker 0: bit what
Speaker 1: you're saying. But what I say is a little bit different and maybe a little bit earlier in the process, We have enemies outside, but we also have the enemy from within. And I say, and I've said it for a long time, you know, I took 100 of 1,000,000,000 out of China, and we got along we got along fine. Other than COVID, where I that was a bridge too far as far as I was concerned. But I took 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars from China.
We got along great. I made a trade deal with China. I don't even talk about it. It was one of the greatest deals ever made. Economically, $50,000,000,000 a year in purchasing of our product.
Nobody talks about it. And that's okay. Because once COVID came, I don't talk about anything having to do. It was a it was really a bridge too far. But we have the outside enemy, and we have the enemy from within.
And I say that the enemy from within is far more dangerous than the outside enemy because if you have a capable president, I'll always be able to get along with Russia, China
Speaker 0: See, what with Kim Jong un what I think you even ought to say more than you do. So it's the let me ask this question.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: I keep I'm very interruptions.
Speaker 1: No. No. You are, and I love that because a lot of people aren't. And you go off in tang you don't let anybody go off on a tangent, and I will not
Speaker 0: let you go off on
Speaker 1: a tangent, but you go on.
Speaker 0: You know, you're tough.
Speaker 1: Go you go ahead.
Speaker 0: Now you're distracting me. What was I talking about?
Speaker 1: The enemy from within.
Speaker 0: We need a name for the enemy. Now I've taken it to call it commonwealthism. We don't even have a name for our enemy regime. We know who China is. Can you imagine fighting a war if you can't name the enemy?
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And you're the one. You are our namer in chief. Right? You're the great namer.
Speaker 1: I've given a lot of great names. I think so.
Speaker 0: Okay. But now you need one. Right.
Speaker 1: I'm not totally satisfied with comrade because a lot of people don't quite understand what it means. She is a Marxist. She's a communist. She's a fascist, and she's not very smart. And these are bad things.
And by the way, if she ever won, my life won't be so great in this country. But I don't care. I don't care. We have to explain
Speaker 0: to this
Speaker 1: woman. We have to explain who this woman is. This woman is a disaster.
Speaker 0: But you got to explain that this woman is part of a movement. Right?
Speaker 1: It's true.
Speaker 0: It's not Nazism. Bad movement. It's not communism exactly. No. Right?
But you have to name
Speaker 1: It's actually stupidism, if you think. Okay. Because when you think about
Speaker 0: it Maybe that's what
Speaker 1: they're doing is so stupid. The open border who wants an open border where tens of millions of people have come in here from other countries? Outbound, communist. I've usually put some moniker on on opponents, if I can. Like, Pocahontas is a good name because she said she was an Indian and she wasn't, so I apologized to the real Pocahontas.
They they demanded that I apologize to Pocahontas, so I did, to the real Pocahontas. But but there are great names, and a lot of them I can't mention because they're Republicans who I did during my little trials and tribulations in the primaries.
Speaker 0: Well, my only advice is get with a name for the purpose
Speaker 1: Would you like comrade? Yeah. It's not bad.
Speaker 0: It's it and and it's accurate.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's pretty accurate. I think it's pretty accurate.
Speaker 0: And so if she's comrade, then the movement of which she is nominally the head of is commalism or communist. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, okay. But choose. Well, comrade means, you know, it means she's she's into that whole sect.
Speaker 0: Right. But comrade just refers to her.
Speaker 1: Correct. That's right.
Speaker 0: And I think it's important to point out that she's the head, at least nominal with the heads, of a movement.
Speaker 1: But I don't think she is the head. That's the Well,
Speaker 0: I don't need I
Speaker 1: don't think she is the head. There are other people behind her that are telling her what to do.
Speaker 0: I agree. Now because I don't like
Speaker 1: She shouldn't be allowed to run. She got no votes. This was a a coup. This was just like a nice, hard South American coup, but there was no bribe
Speaker 0: You know, here here here's the real coup that nobody talks about. Your administration was overthrown. Nothing to do with vote fraud. Leave that aside. All the character assassinations, the bogus investigations, lies, frauds, impeachment, that constitutes a coup, right in front of our face.
And I think people you and Republicans ought to say that. And when they say to you, gee, we worry about Trump because he's gonna affect the coup, the response is, yeah, but you guys already affected the coup. Right? It was a
Speaker 1: coup. You know it better than anybody, and it's very interesting because your writings, and I read your things. And, I don't know that much about you. As soon as I read your first statement about me, I said, this guy's got it figured. So peep people don't understand what they did.
And the problem we have, we have a lot of weak people in the Republican party. They're not willing to play the game with the same level of ferocity that the Democrats play the game. Adam Shifty Schiff is a truly bad guy. He's a crooked guy. The Russian
Speaker 0: See, that's how we have to understand we're in a war. We're in a war. War, you play by different rules. And you don't compromise because there's no basis for compromise. And let me get back to the debate.
Republicans criticized you. Some of them. Right?
Speaker 1: And some some love me.
Speaker 0: Right. But
Speaker 1: And they still do.
Speaker 0: Republicans shouldn't be criticized. You're our man.
Speaker 1: Well, we can't help it. Mitt Romney is Mitt Romney. He's a bad guy.
Speaker 0: But I I all I'm saying is when you're in a war, right, you defend your commander in chief. Right?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm always saying that the Republicans don't stick together like they now I tell you what, on impeachment hoaxes, they stuck together. They were great to me. I actually had a unanimous in the house, which is unheard of, on outside of Romney, who actually only voted half half a vote, if you can believe it. But I had unanimous in the senate. They stuck together for that.
That was a very important thing because it was a hoax. They're all hoaxes. Everything's a hoax. Russia, Russia, Russia was a hoax. They do that.
And what they do is they distract you from doing things to our country that are great. As as they say, make America great again because you're fighting. But the Republicans treat and I'm not talking about for me just if you look over the last 50 years, the Republicans don't stick the way the Democrats do. The Democrats are willing to go for really horrible policy. I think, generally speaking, their policy is horrible.
Nancy Pelosi is a horrible human being. I know her very well. She's a sick, horrible person, but she gets people to stick together. You know, she gets them to stick together for bad things. These are bad people.
What they do to our country, these are very bad people, and I can name a lot of them on the other side. The Republicans have to get tougher. For instance, they cheat like hell in elections. We have a thing called the SAVE Act. It's not the end all, but it makes it a little bit tougher.
They just approve something where the SAVE Act comes up after the election. I said, wait a minute. You just read about it yesterday. They approved and they extended. They did a continuing resolution, of course, because they always do.
They just go on and on. And we have a thing attached to the continuing resolution called the SAVE Act. It has to do with elections, which are taking place right now. They approve and and do the continuing resolution where the SAVE Act is going to be approved probably, but sometime after the election. What the hell good does that do us?
So it's so disappointing. They don't fight like they should fight. Their policies actually, the Republican policies are good. You're a very smart man. I know for a fact that you're a very rich man.
Why the hell do you do this?
Speaker 0: Probably for the same reason. Same Same
Speaker 1: reason I do it.
Speaker 0: You know, I think this is very important. Yeah. I think I have something to offer. Right? Like you, I don't have quite what you have to offer, but I have a particular constellation of skills, and I have resources, and I have something of a platform so I can contribute.
And this is my opportunity.
Speaker 1: Are you a golfer? I am. Do you play well?
Speaker 0: Not as well as you do.
Speaker 1: Well, will you play golf with me at the appropriate time?
Speaker 0: Well, that's very nice of you, but I think I'll pass.
Speaker 1: Because you don't wanna be shot at. I think I'll lose a lot of golf games. You know, to be honest with you, I'm noticing people well, you know, people that love playing golf with me, they're saying, gee, I'd love to, but I'm not feeling so well today. Now I always say golf is a very dangerous game, and I've proven that. Right?
Speaker 0: Yes. You have. Well, I hope this I hope your security is top notch.
Speaker 1: I think it is. I and I tell you, I think they did a great job on the second situation where I really do. To to have somebody pick up the barrel of a gun was pretty good. You know, somebody else is walking down the fairway looking at the weather. Okay?
Isn't it a beautiful day? And this guy took out his gun and he started shooting, and that guy ran, and then he was caught. But, it's very heavy. Well, you're gonna see that today because you're coming with me to North Carolina.
Speaker 0: I'm really looking forward.
Speaker 1: See more machine guns on the tops of buildings than you've ever seen before.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm very I'm very happy with it. Good. Happy with it.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: That's a different kind of an interview. But this guy, I'm not gonna argue with this guy because he's one smart cookie. Thank you. Let's go have some fun.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay?
@TomKlingenstein - Tom Klingenstein
Now that former President Trump is the Republican nominee for President in 2024, it’s time for Republicans, including those who doubt him or even can’t stand him, to get behind him. The times demand it. https://t.co/UZv5fYrvyj
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump, as the Republican nominee for 2024, urges all Republicans to support him in the war against the woke regime. He emphasizes the need for a strong leader who understands the enemy and how to win. Trump rejects accusations of racism and white privilege, rallying his supporters with a message of unity and love for America. He is seen as a fighter against the woke radicals and a figure who has changed politics in the West. Trump's unwavering stance against the deep state and belief in America's greatness make him the ideal leader for the current turbulent times.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now that president Trump is the Republican nominee for president in 2024, it's time for Republicans, including those who doubt him or even can't stand him to get behind him. The Times demand it. We are in a war fighting an enemy of revolutionaries that kick and spit on America. I call our enemy the woke regime or the group quota regime. This war is a contest between those who love America and those who hate it, but we do not have a commander in chief.
You can't win a war without one. We shouldn't much care whether our commander in chief is a real conservative, whether he is a role model for children or says lots of silly things or whether he is modest or dignified. What we should care about is whether he knows we are in a war, knows who the enemy is, and knows how to win. Trump does. His policies are important, but not as important as the rest of him.
Trump grasps the essential things. He understands the group quarter regime is evil and will not stop until it destroys America. He is a fighter, bold, brave, and decisive, who has confidence in himself and his country. Trump never apologizes for America. He rightly believes America is the greatest country in history.
Trump says in effect, we have our culture. It's exceptional, and that's the way we wanna keep it. And we won't keep it if we usher in millions of immigrants with cultures different from our own. Trump knows his job is to protect Americans and just Americans. Protect them not just from enemies abroad, but from the woke global within.
He knows that America does not need more diversity. It needs more cohesion. The woke radicals tell the Trump voters they are threat to democracy. Think about that. They're saying you Trumpsters are a threat to democracy.
The woke radicals also tell us ad nauseam that America is systemically racist. Trump knows this is deadly nonsense, and he says so. Discharge of systemic racism bounces off Trump because he has no white guilt or any guilt for that matter. Trump tells his supporters what they already know. They are not racist and they do not have white privilege.
The woke radical shut up those who disagree. Trump will not be shut up. If they manage to put him in jail, he will still roar like a lion. The woke radicals have the moral arrogance of fanatics. Trump, God bless him, knows we are all sinners.
Trump rejects the utopian fanaticism of the woke radicals. He is a businessman who takes the world on its own terms and navigates by facts and common sense. Trump's base knows firsthand the America that Trump wants to recover. They love him, and they know he loves them. They will fight for him because they know he will fight for them.
Trump speaks to his supporters as fellow citizens without any condescension or poll tested BS. Despite his 1,000,000,000, he is one of them, an outsider looking in, a man who takes ketchup on his steak, and is as disgusted as they are with the and retake the nation without these men and women. Unlike most conservatives, they will actually fight for America, but they follow Trump. Without him, they stay home. With him, they are united and determined.
At his rallies, his audience invariably breaks in the chants of USA USA. In these moments, Trump and his audience mutually pledged to each other their fidelity and their sacred honor. His enemies hate him with an indescribable fierceness. Another Hitler, they said, elect him and he will be a dictator. We should take this hysteria as reason for hope.
The America haters rightly fear that Trump and his party are on the threshold of a successful counterrevolution. Trump hates his enemies every bit as much as they hate him. His enemies are America's enemies. Trump is the most towering figure of our time. He has changed politics, not just in America, but in the west.
If we are to take back America, we need someone who is unmovable, who has proven that he can stand up against the immensely powerful army of woke modernity that will attack him with all its might, someone who will go after the deep state without pity or compassion, and someone who has the conviction that America is still the last best pope of earth. That someone is Trump. Trump, the politician, came out of the blue, an unconventional commander against an unconventional enemy. Almost as president at any other time, Trump fits this turbulent moment to a tee. Is it too much to wonder whether the appearance of this most unconventional man is providential?
Lincoln spoke of Americans as the almost chosen people. Trump gives us hope that the god who was never forsaken, his almost chosen people, will not do so now. Do my best. Thank you.