"Is the Nuclear Family Is Bad" And Other Odd Campus Questions

Hey, everybody.

More conversations with Vivek Ramaswamy. You're going to love this. He is the director of Doge, and he traveled to all these college campuses with us. Become a member today. members.charliekirk.com. That is members.charliekirk.com. Get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com.

That is tpusa.com. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. First of all, I can't hear anything you're saying, okay? I don't think anybody can. And I just want to ask, do you feel proud of yourself for debating college kids who are unprepared to speak in front of an audience like yourself? Hold on, hold on, hold on. You're 30 years old. We can agree you're 30 years old, right?

Do you think that's a little bit silly? Are you a voter? I am a voter. Oh, so I vote and you vote.

So I'm talking to voters of this country that will determine the future of Western civilization. That's what I'm doing here today. Yeah? Wait, hold on. How is it any different than a professor talking to you? Than a professor talking to you?

Who are you? Well, enough important enough for you to come up to a microphone. Actually, when I first saw this ad, I thought it was like an improv comedy thing. It looked so ridiculous that I didn't even think it was real.

Well, no, you could see. Look how popular Trump is on your campus. How does that make you feel?

That's not comedy. That is a five alarm fire for Kamala Harris because she's probably going to lose Pennsylvania. Look, I just want to be clear. Is there something wrong with talking to voters? No, there's nothing wrong with talking to voters. Well, that's what we're doing here today.

It's an open mic. I think that you push a dangerous agenda. Such as? Your stance on abortion rights, for example. Here we go. Okay. So let me ask a question. What is your name?

Jean. And what is your understanding of the current Republican Party's stance on federal intervention and abortion? Well, I know that they want to bring it back to the states, right? So it sounds like you do know that the Republican Party's current stance on abortion is they're against a federal ban on abortion. I do understand about a presidential election as the election that we're talking about here. I understand that.

Yes. Great. So again, I think this open dialogue is great. I think it's great. You're here challenging Charlie.

And I think it's great that he's willing to travel campuses across this country to talk to the next generation. We need more conversation. Where's the disagreement though on content? Because you could criticize style or why you're talking to people or someone personally, but where do you actually disagree? I agree with the way that you edit content and specifically frame it so that people look bad talking to you. You, the way that you edit your content, we post unedited content. Let me just, let me just ask you one thing though.

Cause we can, you can personal, personal insults can fly in all directions. Where is an area where you have a disagreement with the conservative movement, with Donald Trump, with Trump, perhaps with myself, I was a presidential candidate last year. I think we need to talk about that more in the open and the more we do, the stronger our country is going to be. We've got a long line of people, but I want to hear from you one substantive area where you have an authentic disagreement and I'd be glad to address it.

I'm sure Charlie would too. Just in any, anything, any political relating to any political topic where you have a disagreement. Let's air it. Okay. I disagree with the, some of the laws that are being pushed and that are against the LGBTQ community and the trans community. Okay. So let's talk about that. I'm going to give you my view and then I want to hear yours. Okay. My view is that if you're a fully grown adult, 18 or above, you're free to live how you want, dress how you want, marry who you want, if you want, if you're over the age of 18.

I agree. But you are not free to indoctrinate children in schools who are not yet of the age of consent. You are not free. And just as you're a 17 year old or a 15 year old, can't get a tattoo on their own. I don't think that you should be able to go genital mutilation or chemical castration until the age of 18. And so the lines that I draw here is that men are free to claim to be women and swim in swimming pools. You're not free to claim trophies in a women's sports competition.

You're not free to enter a women's locker room. You're not free to change a language and you're not free to actually indoctrinate our children who are under the age of five in schools. Do we agree on the fact that adults should be able to live freely while still treating children differently? If so, we're on the same side of this issue. Listen, I agree with the majority of what you said. However, I don't think that you're understanding the implications of the laws that are trying to be passed. Look, we got a head start in the conversation.

We've got a long line behind you. But my only ask is forget the personal attacks or the stylistic attacks. Focus on substance.

The more we debate that, the stronger we're going to be as a country. Thank you for coming. Thank you. I don't think you're focusing on substance though. That's the issue. Oh, hold on. But he intentionally tried to provoke substance out of you. And you said, well, I'm worried about some laws Congress should pass.

I have to ask what laws are you talking about? Can you be specific? I'm sorry. I'm very nervous. But this is what you do. This is what you do.

You take people and you put them under the spotlight and you. Well, hold on. I didn't ask you to come up here. You voluntarily came to the front of the line.

You didn't have to do that. You're purposely antagonizing people on campus, asking people to come up by spreading your weird agenda. How?

What agenda is that? I'm confused though. So, Charlie, I'll say this.

We'll end on this and we'll go to the next question. When I was 18, I'm not going to blame you for this. I also took for granted a lot of the stuff that the media force fed me, because that's what you know, at the age of 18. You say there are some vague laws making their way through Congress, their hostile community.

I don't think those laws actually exist, but I don't blame you if that's what the cable media is feeding you, but let's get to the specifics. And then we're able to actually have an open dialogue. And that's one of the things I've learned over the last 20 years. I think that the issue is, is we're getting our media from different sources. Both people are getting media from these skewed sources. The facts that you're presenting are not always correct. And that's why we're here with no TV screens between us. So people who have policy-based substantive disagreements, we invite those. I think that's how we're going to get our country back. And as it relates to trans, which you brought up, 18 or above, you're free to live how you want.

You're not free to force that onto somebody else or especially kids. And if we agree on that, we get some progress. Thank you. Everybody, no institution works harder to give young people the best education in America than my favorite college, Hillsdale College. For 180 years now, Hillsdale's mission has been to develop the minds and improve the hearts of its students. And today in just 30 seconds, you can learn what that means by watching a short video at charlieforhillsdale.com. Since 1844, Hillsdale is focused on learning character and faith and providing just the kind of education needed to preserve liberty.

And they extend their mission nationwide through outreach efforts like their Free Digest of Liberty in Primus. Too many colleges and universities today indoctrinate their students to hate America. At Hillsdale, students learn how America became the freest and most prosperous nation in history. And at a time when so many college campuses are rent with division, Hillsdale students sign an honor code promising to respect the rights of others and rise to self-government. Take some time to learn more about what makes Hillsdale College unique at charlieforhillsdale.com. America's greatest college. I love Hillsdale.

Go to charlieforhillsdale.com. Hi, so I got a question for Vivek. And first of all, I want to clarify that I'm not disagreeing. I'm not agreeing with your argument. I just want to understand it because I know one of your most recent claims in your book truth. I know one of your claims is climate climate change. The climate change agenda is a hoax.

And I know that you differentiate between climate change politically and climate change in reality outside of politics. But what's your argument for that statement? And again, I'm not disagreeing. I just want to understand. You don't even have to even if you did disagree, I'm cool with that. But thank you for asking a very respectful and clear question. So I stand by what I said last year, the climate change agenda is a hoax.

Here's why. Our global surface temperatures going up by a little bit they are. Is there any evidence to suggest that that small increase in global surface temperatures is an existential risk to humanity? No. And in fact, and here's the controversial but factual part. Is there evidence to suggest that could even have positive effects for humanity?

Turns out there is. So eight times as many people today die of cold temperatures rather than warm ones. Think about that. We're worried about a small increase in global surface temperatures when more people die of cold temperatures. The earth is more covered by green surface area today than it was a century ago, because carbon dioxide is plant food and they tend to grow in slightly warmer temperatures, which means the greatest carbon sink, what removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is actually trees, the very thing that carbon dioxide helps create more of. Now you go back to actually the 1970s. There were climate scientists in the 1970s. The climate change movement called on us to stop burning fossil fuels in the 70s because they wanted to avoid an ice age.

Think about that. Now it's global warming. More people have died of ice ages in the history of humanity than have actually died of warming. And get this, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at an almost all-time low in the history of the earth.

Just a question for you, and I don't blame you if you don't know the answer because most people don't. What percentage of the atmosphere do you believe is constituted by carbon dioxide versus nitrogen or oxygen? I would say less than about a 20%, 30% roughly.

So I'll tell you what the numbers are roughly. It's about 75% nitrogen, about 20% oxygen. You've got about 1% xenon. 0.04% is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And it used to be higher back when we had global ice ages. So the idea that this is actually causing global warming, let alone the idea that even global warming is necessarily a bad thing for humanity, is entirely unproven. So against that backdrop, changing our way of life, stop using combustion engine vehicles or our gas stoves, stop denying energy abundance to Americans and people around the world. No, I'm against that agenda.

And I think it is the single greatest threat to economic prosperity in this country. And that's why I'm not going to stop fighting on this battle to overcome what I do believe is this mythology, this religion, this cult that has very little to do with science in the name of science. Thank you. My name is Jaden and I am a freshman here. I am a first year voter. I'm speaking on behalf of most of the, there's a lot of, uh, Israeli people on campus, just like, I'm very pro-Israel. I just want to know, like your thoughts on like Israel and all of that, because I've been, I've been out with friends. I've been hate-crimed on for like, just being Jewish. And I've just, um, I just want to know your views on that.

I can, I can start the fake and then you can go. I'm very pro-Israel. Um, I don't know if you know that. And, uh, Donald Trump was the most pro-Israel president in American history, moved the embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Golan Heights, peace, the middle East, the Abraham Accords, um, understand the Democrat party. There is no place for Jews in the Democrat party. And the evidence is this, is that Kamala Harris would have been much better served of putting the governor of this state, uh, on the ticket.

That's obvious, right? And so the governor of Pennsylvania was a much better, much better candidate than Tim Walz. The only reason he was not selected is because he's Jewish and Harris Shapiro would have been far more competitive than what we see right now. And so I hope as you're a first time voter and you're looking at who to vote for, you look at a candidate that aligns with your values, stands with our ally in the middle East, which is president Donald Trump.

Now I'll add one more statement to that. The reason I agree with the things Charlie said is actually because I'm pro America actually. And so I, um, I'm not Jewish. And I think that people who are Jewish have an inherent understanding of the importance of Israel outside of politics. But in an American context, the reason everything Charlie said is true is because it's in our own best interest as the United States to ensure that we're able to provide appropriate balance, to look after our own interests. Here's one thing I would say though, is that I actually stand for, here's what, here's the distinction I'll draw on campus.

I don't think anybody should harass you, should stop you from getting into a classroom. But if somebody over there, and for all I know, they're all there right now is stands to burn an American flag and chance death to America or death to Israel. I'm dead set against that.

It's disgusting. But I still believe they have the right to say it. So I'm going to be consistent about that.

You have free speech for any opinion in this country, but you're not free to actually be violent or obstruct somebody else. And that's also something I want to say, because that part of what makes America great too, the first time around. Thank you. Thank you. So which way are you tilted in the election?

Probably Trump. Yeah. You want a hat?

I already have a hat. But one more question. What's going to be done about just more of like the hate crimes, like just done against the Jewish people?

Because I feel like I've seen like a lot of that. Well, I think I'll just tie this to a question from a woman who appeared to be maybe more left-leaning before. I agree with her too. We need to fight all crime in this country, period, by restoring law and order and allow police to actually do their jobs, especially at the local level.

So what's happening in the country right now is the federal police state is overreaching and prosecuting crimes that aren't actually crimes, making up the law as they go along and going after their political opponents, while at the same time, local police are actually unable to even do their job to keep people safe in their communities. We need to flip that around. Thank you guys. Thank you. A disagreement's most welcome.

Yes. I like that. It's a very interesting sign.

It says right in Biden. I'm intrigued. I'm intrigued. We can bring, we'll bring them up in a little bit. All right. How are you doing?

My name's Coonj. I'm a first year voter as well this year. I'm not, I'm an independent. Like I haven't, I'm not left or right yet, but I'm just wondering where your underlying values are as to why you became a Republican. Like what are the morals behind it?

Yeah. I mean, I'm probably not a great example to ask because I'm not a politician by background. I'm a businessman. I ran for US president last year as a Republican, but I said this countless times and it might've annoyed some people in the party. I wasn't running as a Republican. I'm running as an American.

Okay. And that's actually what I care about are our pro American values. Where do I derive my values as a political leader in the country?

It starts with the declaration of independence and the US constitution. I believe the people we elect to run the government, even if they're the ones I disagree with, the people we elect to run the government should be the ones who run the government, not the unelected bureaucrats who put up puppets as their US president. I'm pointing to Biden. He, he's not even running the country right now. We call him the US president.

He's not the functioning US president. That's not a democracy. I believe in merit that the best person should get the job, free speech, open debate. And so all I'd say is if you want to call yourself an independent, that's a pretty good thing to be hard to argue with being independent minded, but stand for the values enshrined in our constitution and the declaration of independence. And if there's a point in the future, 50 years from now, where the Republican party abandons that, then I'm not a Republican anymore.

I'm sorry. The Republican party actually was the party that stood against slavery back when Abraham Lincoln was president. And it's a party that stands against enslavement today. But if that ever changes in the future, then I'm out of the Republican party. I'm into the pro-American movement. And the reason I vote and stand for election as a Republican is because right now that is the pro-American party in America.

Yeah. And I I'm a conservative and vote Republican, because I think the founders got it right. I think the founders understood human nature. I think that they understood the form of government. And they understood that people are best served when liberty is recognized as given by a divine source, not as a government source. That decentralized power is best. That three branches of checks and balances and consent to the governed is the correct way of governing a country. The conservative movement understands and appreciates our roots going back to 1776 and trying to ask the question, are we are we leaning into the founders a vision in this country?

And so those are the values that I that I hinge upon. If your approach to everyday aches and pains is to mask them, you know, feel better for a few hours only to have the pain return and then repeat the cycle all over again. It's time to try Relief Factor. And the good news is Relief Factor makes it quite easy.

Their three week quick start is just nineteen ninety five, less than a dollar a day. Instead of masking pain, Relief Factor helps eliminate it. How? Well, its unique formula of natural ingredients helps support your body's response to inflammation. Relief Factor was developed by doctors. It's one hundred percent drug free. And for so many people, the results are game changing, even life changing. So give it a try right now.

Their three week quick start is just nineteen ninety five. Go to relief factor dot com or call one eight hundred for relief. That is one eight hundred for relief. See how in a few weeks or even a few days, Relief Factor can reduce your pain.

So don't mask your pain fight naturally with Relief Factor, relief factor dot com. I'm Julia. I'm also a first time voter. I just have a simple yes or no question. If if the only way to ban abortion forever would be to bring back slavery, would you do it? No, no, no.

I wouldn't bring back slavery to try to limit murder. No. Okay. Well, what kind of outrageous question is that, by the way?

I'm just curious. Just yes or no. Can I ask you a question then? Sure. If the if the only way to limit human suffering is to ban abortion, would you ban abortion? To say that again.

If the only way to limit human suffering is to ban abortion, would you ban abortion? No. It was an honest answer. Okay. It was an honest answer. Yeah, I just know we just we probably disagree with you pretty deeply on that.

But thank you. When does life begin in your estimation? I just wanted to ask a yes or no. That's it. No, sure.

But when does life begin? That's all I wanted to ask is a yes or no. Okay.

I could tell you thought deeply about this topic. Okay. Thank you. Great. Yep. Next question. Yep.

You can work your way up, guys. Can you do me a favor? If you're a supporter, make room for the disagreements, please. Okay. Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Kirk and Ramaswami. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry.

Pronunciation right there. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Yeah. So I'm a sort of I just want to preface by saying I'm not a conservative. I'm a pretty committed left wing. Oh, sorry.

I was having a problem with the microphone. I just want to preface. I'm not conservative. I'm a pretty committed leftist Catholic.

But I am curious, like, what do you or I guess conservatives generally, like, stand to conserve whenever you shift left every single time the Overton window shifts like on certain like topics, like, I guess, because, like, like integration, LGBTQ plus rights movement, immigration as well. Like, it seems like, I guess, ideological state apparatuses have, like, obviously, we think slavery is wrong, right? You know, like, that's clearly wrong. But it's also 150 years of state sponsored education created that sort of thing. In the same way that we have, I guess, 50 years of integration being promoted, which I'm not against it. All right.

I think these are very good things. But it seems like things that previously were tried to conserve were conservative movements in the past have always failed to actually conserve specific social issues like that. Did you say you were a leftist Catholic? Leftist Catholic. Yeah.

That's amazing. Social conservative, fiscal liberal. Okay. Yeah, that's fair.

I wouldn't say that's a leftist Catholic, though. I know that you're something else then. Yeah, it's like, yeah, like sort of a- Fair enough. Yeah.

American Solidarity Party kind of. Okay. Yeah.

But not like liberation theology. Oh, I can get down with it a little bit, but not terribly so. Yeah. Okay.

Like Oscar Romero is a saint, I would say. So what you're trying to pinpoint is a little bit of a logical fallacy, is you're saying that, okay, that slavery is bad, segregation is bad, but there's other things that are worthy of conserving, like the family. Yeah. Yeah. And that's where our emphasis is on, correct?

Kind of. But you guys are just going, like, I think the nuclear family has sort of been the death of America in a lot of ways. We need multi-generational households. My mother didn't grow up in a nuclear family. She lived with her grandfather and stuff like that. I feel like the 1950s, these sort of single-family households are very destructive for the United States in the way that we sort of perceive things.

You just send older people to- That's a smart point, but I think Vivek can- Yeah. So I think that, first of all, let's look at it in a political context outside of the religious context. And I'd love to come back to the religious context after that.

Yeah. So from a political context, you're eight times more likely to graduate from high school. You're 10 times more likely not, more likely to end up in prison if you grew up in a single-parent household, rather than a dual-parent household. You're more likely to end up in poverty if you grew up in a single-parent household. So I actually believe the nuclear family has been the single greatest building block of not only the United States of America.

This is actually true for societies across time, even dating back to Aristotle, believing that the polity was built only around a strong household unit. And it's very personal to me. I mean, people often use the word privilege. Okay. Well, I mean, I actually didn't grow up in wealth.

I grew up with the ultimate privilege of two parents in the house, instilling in us belief in the family and belief with a faith in God. And so I think that that is inherently good just economically. If you're talking about economical and social outcomes, it's better. But I agree. Multigenerational is actually probably more ideal than nuclear, but you can agree nuclear better than single.

Yeah, yeah. I don't view nuclear as- I don't view as nuclear as incompatible. I mean, we've had- No, for sure. It's a stage of degradation, I would say. Yeah, that's probably fair. But I mean, I think multigenerational is a really beautiful thing. I concede that point.

Totally. And so what's the disagreement? Nuclear embedded in multigenerational. Well, I guess my original question was like, because also, since you also agree that the nuclear family is a degradation for the multigenerational- Yes and no. Yeah, in some ways, yeah, obviously. But what have conservatives conserved on social issues? Like, I mean, 20, 30 years ago, a presidential candidate couldn't have said gay marriage was okay. Oh, yeah. Okay. So- Not that I surely disagree with legalizing gay marriage and religious and other stuff.

Well, that's a good question. We repealed Roe versus Wade. That's a big deal.

It was kind of a dead letter though. I mean, there's certain, like Casey and stuff, the Roe thing was about viability and then it went up to 15 weeks or something. Then there's other- Well, Casey v Planned Parenthood was in 1992 and we lost that case, 5-4, because of Anthony Kennedy's decision.

No, but the subsequent case law and stuff like that really does- I know, but what have conservatives conserved? Yeah. Not enough.

Not enough. Yeah. But we did repeal Roe versus Wade. Gun rights are more abundant than we've ever seen in this country, which I think is a very, very good thing. Second Amendment protections. Ronald Reagan banned machine guns though. Okay. You're right.

We can nitpick certain individuals, but- I mean Trump banned bump stocks. If your contention is that the conservative movement has not been good enough at slowing down the left-wing machine, you're totally right. Yeah. I don't disagree. I think the goal shouldn't be slowing down though. I think, because like I said, I think my issue with you is that you always go left with the Overton window- Do we?

It seems like it, yeah. Well, did you hear my discussion on abortion earlier or on trans stuff or- I don't agree with you on abortion. I mean, I'm anti Griswold v Connecticut or whatever. Connecticut v Griswold.

I think that was even worse than Roe v Wade in terms of Supreme Court decisions. I mean, because you also get to the right direction. I don't want to get too into that. I like these guys philosophical. I'll tell you one thing where, I don't know.

Charlie and I haven't talked about this, but I'll tell you where I am. I actually gave speeches about this last year, which is that what happens when the thing that you seek to conserve no longer actually exists? I actually think the conservative movement right now needs to recreate action. I think we have lost those founding ideals. So we're not in the mode of just defending a thing. We've defended the castle.

The castle's empty. So now's the moment where we actually have to rebuild the thing. In some cases, from a clean edifice.

So I think that's an exciting moment. And I'll just close on just a philosophical question. I'll give you a philosophical answer.

Different people are wired in different ways. And generally it tends to be like liberal progressive people who have the more sort of creative nature versus a conservative nature is much more of a conservative pattern of thinking and conserving. Right now, the paradox for the conservative movement is I think we actually need leaders in the conservative movement who have that creative creator mindset because the thing we've sought to conserve in so many ways actually ceases to exist. So it was a deep question. We could probably continue this in a way that doesn't leave everybody else, hold everybody else hostage.

Just one thing to wrap up. Would you support expanding welfare because abortion is, there's obviously the French case of rape, incest, stuff like that, life of the mother. But would you support expanding welfare to help because it's off, abortion's often an economic issue as well. You wouldn't, to prevent it? No. That just sounds evil to me.

Well, hold on. That's a good, interesting point. So we've expanded social welfare.

We spent $20 trillion in the last 60 years. Has that made abortions go down? I don't believe so. The answer is no.

It's gone up. So actually the more we've spent on social welfare, the more abortions we have. So you're coming at it from a faulty premise. People do not have abortions because of lack of stuff.

They have abortions because they don't think it's a human life. I mean, I've seen sexually in housing. It's pretty rough out there.

Like a lot of stuff. I'm not doubting that. However, you and I will both agree.

People murder or do not murder, whether or not they believe it is right or wrong, not whether or not you're driving a Cadillac or a bicycle. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Bye. Moms from a lifetime of pain and regret. I'm a donor of this organization. They're terrific. Go to Charlie Kirk dot com.

Click on the preborn banner. So I have two very quick questions. First with you, Charlie. So recently I was on YouTube and I saw one of your viral videos and pretty much you were talking and interviewing a college student like the rest of us. And she was pretty much like arguing. It was on the topic of abortion.

And you made the claim that if a young woman, like not even a young woman, like a child, and she made the example, if it was your daughter, for example, like four, maybe 10 years old. You know, we literally just had this. Oh, I didn't hear that. OK. OK. No, no, no. And I'm not arguing. I'm just curious.

I just want and you already obviously like, no, you're sad and mindset on that. Just to better educate myself and everybody here. I want to know, why would you think that if a 10 year old were something horrible were to happen and they were to get impregnated, that they would not be allowed to get an abortion? OK. So first of all, let's just acknowledge that is an incredibly rare case and a disgusting thing. And but it can still happen.

Of course it can. So let me get five words in it. Go ahead. Right. OK.

So that's number one or two. I believe that's a human life. OK.

Therefore, for me to be consistent, I have to treat all human life the same. So, for example, I do not believe someone in this audience was conceived in rape. Who?

Can you look around and tell me which one? No, I don't know that. Exactly. OK. Because your human rights don't stop based on the method of your conception. OK. And so just you understand, I have to take a principled view on this because I don't get to pick and choose which life get human rights.

Acknowledging this is an incredibly difficult scenario that involves potentially my daughter, hyper emotional. Right. And I thought I tried to keep it even keel on it. But to be consistent, you don't get to just murder life because it's a situation that is disgusting and evil.

Secondly, when in life is it OK to do something evil after something evil happens? OK. And so therefore, I'm saying two wrongs that make a right. So OK, that you wanted to my perspective, that is my perspective. That's what I asked. And I'm not trying to argue.

I'm not. Of course. And I just I just have. OK, you got you got that point across.

Yes, ma'am. OK. I disagree in the fact that, Charlie, you've stated that you're not into criminalizing the mother for an abortion.

Why is that? Like, how can we make a law that has no consequences? Well, there's there's two parts of this. Right. The first of which is no person should advocate for retroactive enforcement of something that was once legal to then make illegal. We can agree with that. Right. Right. No matter what the law is, you cannot claw back.

For example, if all of a sudden the government says you can't have a public assembly like this and that is effective tomorrow, they can't go back today and put us all in prison. Right. So that's number one, retroactive. Number two, my heart goes out to women that have abortions.

Right. Because they're lied to and manipulated. And it's based on one very simple medical principle, the lack of informed consent. I do not believe women, largely when they get abortions, know what they're doing. They're not given ultrasounds for their baby. They're not informed of the gruesome and graphic details surrounding their procedure. Instead, the justice system should be focused on the abortionists that are actually doing that procedure.

Does that make sense? I mean, I guess, but the person also committing the crime like killing her baby is I feel like should also be held responsible. Like, how can we ban abortions and the mom just still be let go? Yeah, we're just not going to agree. I just don't. First of all, she's not doing the act.

Many times she's being forced into that situation by someone paying for that abortion, such as a someone that she might have had a relationship with or even in terrible pimps also do it as well. But we're not going to agree because I think our posture on abortion should be compassion for the women that have abortions and get abortions and justice for the industry that lies to them. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Hi, I'm Rachel. I already off the bat. I do not agree with a lot of politically what I know you have to say, but I am a part of Bridge Pittsburgh, which is a organization that believes in having civil discussion without yelling at each other.

So I actually have some friends from Turning Point back there, even though I am a registered Democrat. So what's up, Jesse? My question is actually for you, Vivek.

First off, thanks for coming. Second, as a person of color and as someone of Indian descent, does it offend you whenever there's comments made about Kamala and some racial sensitivities on that? Does that offend you in any way or hurt you? Or does that drive you to still try to be representative of your party, even when those comments are made by your party? Give me a specific comment.

Okay. Well, for example, the recent thing that was if Kamala got elected, the White House would smell like curry. Is that offend you in any way?

Or is that just like drive for you? For the record, Trump did not say Trump. Donald Trump did not say that, but it was still implied as there's a president's election. I'm actually a pretty thick skinned guy. I can tell the difference between somebody who has an earnest joke and the person who actually happens to say that I happen to happen knows doesn't have ill will towards Indian people.

But if you're going to joke, my only rule is you better apply 360 degrees, okay? You can't apply it selectively. Here's actually my view on this is a lot of Indian Americans across the country actually have been somewhat disappointed for a long time about Kamala Harris's willingness to engage with and listen to a lot of the concerns even of the Indian American community. I'll tell you what one of them are is relating to merit, merit in getting into college, merit in getting into jobs without jobs without regard to your skin color, your discrimination. I think most people want that better life for their kids. And so I think most people think about that regardless of their skin color. But if you're thinking about actual concerns of the Indian American community, that's probably very high on the list. And Kamala Harris is failing to embody that. Now for me, my own view is, let me level with you a little bit. I actually think we have seen an unusual level, like it isn't the last year, okay?

And it's, it's strange. A small uptick in anti-black and anti-Hispanic racism in the country. And I would have never thought we were going to see it. Here's why I think we've seen it. I think we've seen it as a reactionary response to the anti-racist movement for the last 10 years, because there's no better way to foster racial animus than to take something else away from someone based on their skin color. So when you say you don't get that federal aid, or you don't get that seat in college, or you don't get that job because of your skin color, you're going to have a negative attitude towards the person who was favored because of their race.

And this is what's going on in Springfield too, by the way, when I'm visiting tomorrow. In a certain sense, if you're going to put 20,000 people who are not going to be able to integrate into a community, into that community, I sympathize with people who are suffering as a consequence of that, that's necessarily going to spawn a reactionary response. I did agree with you on that when you said that earlier. And then, but then you can't blame the reactionary response and say they're responsible for the division. I think it's a lot of those policies that created that division in the first place.

And bluntly, I do put a lot of that at the feet of Kamala Harris and the movement that she represents. And that's where I'm at on it. Thank you for the question. Thank you. Have a great day.

Yeah, you too. Thank you. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless.