Vivek Is So Strong On Policy, Lex Fridman Asks Him To Debate Himself! * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Noah

Posted on by Vaseline

Lex: On the human psychology level, you kind of implied that for Donald Trump or any president, the legal situation was difficult. But is that the only thing really operating? Isn’t it also, on a psychological level, just hard to fire a large number of people? Is that what it is? Why is there this basic civility and momentum going on?

Vivek: Well, I think there’s one other factor. You’re right to point out the legal backdrop, and that’s a valid and understandable reason. But I think there are other factors at play too. One factor is that there’s something to be said for never having been in government, showing up there the first time, and having to understand the rules of the road as you’re operating within them. Also, having to depend on people who aren’t aligned with your policy vision, but tell you to your face that they are.

That’s one of the things I’ve admired about President Trump. He’s been very open and humble about that, saying that there’s a million lessons learned from that first term that make him more ambitious in this second term. But everything I’m talking to you about is what needs to happen in the country. It’s not specific to Donald Trump—it’s about what needs to be done. Over the next four years, Donald Trump is our last best hope for moving that ball forward, but I think the vision I’m laying out goes beyond just the next two or four years. It’s about fixing a century’s worth of mistakes.

I think we’re going to fix a lot of them in the next four years if Donald Trump is president, but if you have a century’s worth of mistakes that have accumulated with the overgrowth of the entitlement state in the U.S., it’s going to take, you know, probably the better part of a decade to fix them.

Lex: I disagree with you on both the “last” and the “best” hope. Donald Trump is more likely to fire a lot of people, but is he really the best person to do so?

Vivek: We’ve got two candidates, right? People face a choice. This is a relevant election. One of my goals is to speak to people who may not agree with 100% of what Donald Trump says. And I can tell them, “You know what? I don’t agree with 100% of what he says.” As someone who ran against him for U.S. president, I can also tell them that, right now, he is, in this cycle, the last best hope that we have for dismantling that bureaucratic class. And, you know, I think that this is a long-term project. But we have the next step to take over the next few years, so that’s where I land on it.

I mean, you talked to him a few weeks ago—I saw you had a podcast with him, right? What was your impression about his preparedness to do it?

Lex: My impression is that his priority allocation is different from yours. I think he’s more focused on some of the other topics that you’re also focused on…

Vivek: Border? Laser-focused on.

Lex: …And there’s a tension there, just as you’ve clearly highlighted.

Vivek: We share the same priority with respect to the southern border, and those are near-term fixes we can hit out of the park in the first year. But at the same time, I think we’ve got to think on a decade-long time horizon. My conviction and belief is that Donald Trump does care about dismantling that federal bureaucracy—certainly more so than any Republican nominee we’ve had in my lifetime.

But there are going to be competing schools of thought where some will say, “We want to create a right-wing entitlement state, right? Shower federal subsidies on favored industries while keeping them away from disfavored industries, create new bureaucracies to administer them.” And I don’t come from that school of thought. I don’t want to see the bureaucracy expand in a pro-conservative direction—I want to see the bureaucracy shrink in every direction.

And, you know, from my conversations with Donald Trump, I believe that he’s aligned with this vision of shrinking the bureaucracy. But that’s a longer-term project.

Lex: There are so many priorities at play here, though. You really do have to do the Elon thing of walking into Twitter headquarters…

Vivek: Shut it down.

Lex: …With a sink, right? Let that sink in. Firing a very large number of people. But it’s not just about the firing; it’s about setting clear missions for the different departments that remain, hiring back based on meritocracy. It’s a full-time job. And it’s not only full-time in terms of actual time; it’s full-time psychologically. Because you’re walking into a place unlike a company like Twitter, an already successful company. In government, everybody around you—all the experts and advisors—are going to tell you you’re wrong. It’s a very difficult psychological place to operate in because you’re constantly the “asshole.” The certainty you have to have about what you’re doing has to be nearly infinite because all the really smart people are telling you, “No, this is a terrible idea, sir, this is a terrible idea.”

Vivek: No, you have to have this spine of steel to cut through what that short-term advice is that you’re getting. And I’ll tell you, certainly, I intend to do whatever I can for this country, both in the next four years and beyond. But my voice on this will be crystal clear, and President Trump knows that’s my view. And I believe he shares it deeply—that all else being equal, getting in there and shutting down as much of the excess bureaucracy as we can is a big part of how we save our country.

Lex: I’ll give you an example that’s really difficult given your priorities—immigration. There are an estimated 14 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Vivek: Yes.

Lex: You’ve spoken about mass deportation.

Vivek: Right.

Lex: That requires a lot of effort, money… How do you do it, and how does that conflict with shutting it down?

Vivek: Sure. It goes back to the original discussion we had about what the proper roles of the federal government are. I gave you two: one is to protect the national borders and sovereignty of the United States, and two is to protect private property rights. There’s a lot else the federal government is doing today, both at the federal and state levels, that is outside those two things. But in my book, those are the two proper functions of government. So for everything else, the federal government should not be doing. But one thing they should be doing is protecting the homeland of the United States of America and the sovereignty and sanctity of our national borders.

So in that domain, that’s mission-aligned with a proper purpose for the federal government. I think we’re a nation founded on the rule of law. I say this as the kid of legal immigrants. That means your first act of entering this country cannot break the law. And in some ways, if I were to summarize a formula for saving the country over the next four years, it would be a tale of two mass deportations: the mass deportations of millions of illegals who are in this country and should not be, and the mass deportation of millions of unelected federal bureaucrats out of Washington, D.C.

Now, you could say that those are in tension, but I think the reality is anything outside the scope of what the core function of the government is—protecting borders and protecting private property rights—that’s really where the predominant cuts need to be. If you look at the number of people who are looking after the border, it’s not even 0.1% of the federal employee base today. So, 75% isn’t 99.99%; it’s 75%, which would still leave the… It would still be a tiny fraction of the remaining 25%, which I actually think needs to be more rather than less.

So it’s a good question, but that’s where I land on it—when it’s a proper role of the federal government, great, act and actually do your job. The irony is, 99.9999% of those resources are going to functions other than the protection of private property rights and the protection of our national physical security.

Lex: There is a lot of criticism of the idea of mass deportation, though. One is that it will cause a large amount of economic harm, at least in the short term. The other is that there would be potential violations of our higher ideals of how we treat human beings—in particular, the separation of families, for example, tearing families apart. And then there’s just the logistical complexity of doing something like this. How do you answer some of those criticisms?

Vivek: So, fair enough. And I would call those not even criticisms but thoughtful questions. Even if someone is aligned with doing this, those are thoughtful questions to ask.

So I do want to say something about this point—how we think about the rule of law in other contexts. There are 350,000 mothers who are in prison in the United States today who committed crimes and were convicted of them. They didn’t take their kids with them to those prisons either, right? So we face difficult trade-offs in all kinds of contexts when it comes to the enforcement of the law. And I just want to make that basic observation against the backdrop of, if we’re a nation founded on the rule of law, we acknowledge that there are trade-offs to enforcing the law. We’ve acknowledged that in other contexts, and I don’t think we should have a special exemption for saying that somehow we weigh the other way when it comes to the issue of the border.

We’re a nation founded on the rule of law. We enforce laws, and that has costs, that has trade-offs, but it’s who we are.

Vivek: So, against that backdrop, the easiest fact I can cite is that we have already accepted as a nation that there are trade-offs to enforcing the rule of law. We see that when we enforce laws against theft, against violent crimes—everywhere else in society, we accept the costs that come with enforcing the law. The same principle applies to enforcing immigration law. And it’s worth mentioning that we are already seeing families separated for many other crimes. So why would we create an exception for immigration law?

Now, the question of economic harm—that’s a reasonable question to ask. I would say that the economy will adapt. We have a labor market where, in many cases, people are competing for lower-wage jobs because the market is flooded with illegal immigrants who are willing to work for much less. That hurts American citizens, particularly low-income Americans and African Americans, who are disproportionately impacted by the influx of illegal labor. So, I actually believe that removing illegal immigrants from the labor market will raise wages for American workers, though there may be some short-term disruptions. But over time, the economy will adjust and likely even thrive because we’ll have a more lawful, fair labor market.

Regarding the logistics of mass deportation—yeah, it’s a challenge, but it’s not insurmountable. The federal government has significant resources, and if it prioritized this as a matter of national security and law enforcement, it could be done. It’s not going to happen overnight, but if we focus our efforts on this, the problem can be mitigated over time. It’s not just about rounding people up all at once. It’s about consistent enforcement of the law. You enforce it on the employers who hire illegal immigrants, you enforce it at the border to prevent new illegal crossings, and you steadily deport those who are here illegally.

Lex: But with that logistical challenge in mind, do you see a scenario where the deportation process could be more selective? I mean, what happens with people who have been in the country for many years, have families, have roots? Is there any nuance there in terms of prioritizing who should be deported first?

Vivek: Sure, I think there can be nuance. It’s common sense that you prioritize deporting criminals and those who pose a clear threat to public safety first. I think that’s a no-brainer. If you’re here illegally and have committed crimes in addition to violating immigration law, you’re at the front of the line for deportation.

For others, yes, I think there could be some consideration given to how long someone has been here, whether they have family ties, and whether they’ve been otherwise law-abiding. But the key here is that they are still breaking the law by being here illegally. The rule of law has to apply to everyone. That’s the foundation of any functional nation. So, while there could be some flexibility in terms of timing and prioritization, the ultimate goal has to be the enforcement of our immigration laws.

We have to restore order at the border first and foremost. After that, we can talk about specific pathways for those who are willing to get in line legally or make amends. But the guiding principle has to be that the law is enforced and that the United States is a nation where the rule of law matters. Otherwise, we lose what makes this country a country.

Lex: Okay, so how do you balance enforcing the law and implementing mass deportations with the idea that some people came here seeking refuge, escaping dangerous situations, or extreme poverty? Does that fit into the enforcement process in any way?

Vivek: Look, I’m sympathetic to people who are escaping desperate situations. The United States has always been a beacon of hope for people around the world. We have a rich tradition of being a refuge for those fleeing persecution, war, and hardship. But that process has to happen through legal channels. We have laws and a system in place for asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants. We need to make sure that system works and that people who qualify for asylum or refugee status can go through the proper legal process.

What we cannot do is allow our borders to be wide open for anyone to cross, with no regard for the legal system. If you want to come here for a better life, there are legal ways to do that. The issue is when people break the law by crossing the border illegally, it undermines the entire system. We have to enforce our laws, and we have to restore the integrity of our borders.

In the long run, I do believe the United States should continue to be a welcoming place for legal immigrants, but we cannot do that if the system is being abused and overwhelmed by illegal immigration. We need to enforce our borders first, and then we can have a discussion about reforming our legal immigration system to make it more efficient and more humane.

Lex: So, one last question on immigration before we shift gears. How do you think these immigration policies will affect the long-term relationship between the U.S. and countries in Central America and Mexico?

Vivek: That’s a good question, and I think we need to be clear that enforcing our borders and our immigration laws is not about being hostile toward our neighbors. In fact, a stable U.S.-Mexico border benefits both countries. The current situation, where human trafficking, drug cartels, and uncontrolled migration are rampant, isn’t good for Mexico either.

One of the things we need to do is work with Mexico and Central American countries to help address some of the root causes of migration. Part of that is economic opportunity, but part of it is also security. We need to help these countries stabilize their economies and secure their territories so that their citizens don’t feel the need to flee in the first place.

That being said, it’s not the U.S.’s responsibility to be the safety net for every country in the world. We can’t accept that. Our responsibility is to our own citizens first. So we have to secure our border, enforce our laws, and then work with our neighbors to improve conditions so that migration is not the only option for people in those countries.

But we cannot compromise our own security and sovereignty in the process. It’s not a zero-sum game. We can have strong relationships with our neighbors while also maintaining the integrity of our borders and the rule of law within our own country.

Lex: Okay, let’s pivot from immigration for a bit. We’ve touched on a lot of ideas in this conversation, including the role of the federal government, bureaucracy, and the nanny state. What’s your broader philosophy on individual liberty? How does that fit into this larger vision of reforming the country?

Vivek: That’s a great question because, ultimately, it all comes back to individual liberty. Everything I’m talking about—shrinking the size of government, dismantling the nanny state, restoring the rule of law—it’s all aimed at protecting and expanding individual liberty.

The founders of this country believed in limited government for a reason. They believed that individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness and live their lives without being micromanaged by the state. That’s what I believe too. I think we need to get back to that founding vision where government’s role is to protect your rights, not tell you how to live your life.

I think one of the biggest threats to liberty today is the overreach of government into every aspect of our lives. Whether it’s through the regulatory state, entitlement programs, or the nanny state, government has expanded far beyond its original mandate. That stifles innovation, it stifles economic growth, and most importantly, it stifles individual freedom.

So my broader philosophy is this: Government should exist to protect our borders, enforce laws, and protect private property rights. Beyond that, individuals should have the freedom to make their own decisions, to succeed or fail on their own merits, and to live their lives as they see fit. That’s the essence of liberty. And I think that if we restore that principle in America, we will unleash a new era of innovation, prosperity, and human flourishing.

Vivek: So, that’s my vision. It’s a return to the founding principles of this country: merit, individual liberty, and the rule of law. Those are the core values that have made America the greatest country in the history of the world, and I believe that if we get back to those principles, we’ll see a revival of what makes this country exceptional.

Lex: How does that vision for liberty fit into the role of the private sector? You’ve mentioned big tech, free speech, and censorship before. How do you see that playing out?

Vivek: Yeah, that’s a crucial piece of the puzzle. When I talk about liberty, I’m not just talking about protection from government overreach. I’m also talking about protection from corporate overreach, especially when it comes to free speech and individual rights.

Big tech companies, for example, have become some of the most powerful entities in the world, and they’ve started to behave like governments themselves—deciding what can and cannot be said, controlling the flow of information, and influencing elections. This is a serious threat to liberty.

I believe we need to apply the same principles of liberty and free speech in the private sector as we do in the public sector. These tech companies need to be held accountable for censoring speech, especially when they’re acting in collusion with the government, as we’ve seen with cases where social media platforms have worked with government agencies to suppress certain viewpoints. That’s unacceptable.

In a free society, you should be able to express your views without fear of being silenced by a powerful corporation or the government. That’s why I’m a big advocate for reforming Section 230 and holding these companies accountable when they engage in censorship. Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights we have, and we need to defend it at all costs.

Lex: Do you see any risks with government intervening in the private sector too much? You know, there’s always a balance—when is government intervention justified, and when does it go too far?

Vivek: Absolutely, there are always risks. I think you have to be very careful when it comes to government intervention in the private sector. Generally speaking, I believe in minimal government interference in markets. But when it comes to protecting fundamental rights like free speech, that’s where the government has a role.

If a private company is infringing on individual rights in ways that affect the broader society—especially when it’s colluding with government—that’s when you need government to step in and protect those rights. But the goal should always be to minimize government intervention and allow the free market to work as much as possible.

It’s a fine line, but I think the distinction comes down to whether the private sector is interfering with individual liberties. If they are, then intervention may be necessary to protect those liberties. If not, then we should let the market do its thing.

Lex: Speaking of free speech and the free market, let’s talk about education for a minute. You’ve mentioned the Department of Education before and talked about scaling back the federal government’s involvement in education. How do you see that playing out? What’s the role of the states versus the federal government in education?

Vivek: I think education should be as decentralized as possible. The federal government’s role in education should be minimal, if not nonexistent. Education is one of those areas where local control is much more effective. What works for one community in Iowa may not work for a community in New York City. Local school districts and states should have the autonomy to decide what’s best for their students.

At the federal level, we should not be dictating what gets taught in classrooms or how schools are run. That’s a local issue. The Department of Education, in my view, has overstepped its bounds and created more problems than it’s solved. I’ve talked about shutting it down, and I stand by that. We should let states and localities take the lead on education policy.

The other piece of this is school choice. I’m a big advocate for school choice, whether it’s charter schools, vouchers, or other mechanisms that give parents more control over where their kids go to school. Competition in education is a good thing. It forces schools to innovate and improve, which benefits students. Every child should have access to a quality education, regardless of where they live or their socioeconomic background.

Lex: But what do you say to critics who argue that school choice programs might undermine public schools or create inequalities in the education system?

Vivek: I understand those concerns, but I think the reality is that the current system is already failing too many kids, especially in low-income areas. We need to give parents more options to find the best education for their children. If a public school isn’t working, why should a family be trapped there? School choice gives parents the power to seek out better opportunities, whether that’s a charter school, a private school, or even homeschooling.

Yes, there are challenges to address, but I believe that the benefits of school choice far outweigh the risks. Public schools that are struggling should be incentivized to improve by the presence of competition. If they know that families have other options, they’re going to be more motivated to innovate and raise their standards.

At the end of the day, it’s about empowering families and students to succeed. The current one-size-fits-all approach in many public schools isn’t working, and we need to give families the freedom to find the right fit for their children.

Lex: Alright, shifting gears a bit—what’s your vision for the future of conservatism in America? We’ve touched on a lot of policy issues, but what’s the bigger picture here? What kind of country do you want to see in the next 10, 20 years?

Vivek: The bigger picture is that I want to see America return to the values that made it great in the first place. I want to see us embrace the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, meritocracy, and the rule of law.

In 10, 20 years, I want to see a country where people are free to pursue their dreams without government interference. I want to see a country where success is based on merit, not on group quotas or identity politics. I want to see a country where families are strong, communities are vibrant, and government is limited in its scope and power.

I think conservatism is about getting back to basics. It’s about embracing the idea that people can govern themselves, that they don’t need a nanny state to tell them what to do. It’s about creating an environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed based on their own hard work and talents.

At the same time, it’s about restoring a sense of national pride and unity. We need to remember that we’re all Americans, and we’re all in this together. The culture wars and identity politics have divided us for too long. It’s time to move past that and focus on what brings us together as a nation.

So, in the long term, my vision for conservatism is one that embraces individual liberty, national unity, and a return to the values that have made America the most prosperous, innovative, and free country in the world.

Lex: That’s a powerful vision. As we wrap up, what’s the one message you want people to take away from this conversation? What’s the core of your message to America?

Vivek: The core of my message is simple: We need to revive the spirit of 1776. That means getting back to the principles of liberty, merit, and the rule of law that founded this country. We need to restore faith in the American dream—that if you work hard, play by the rules, and believe in yourself, you can achieve anything.

At the same time, we need to get the government out of the way. We need to dismantle the nanny state in all its forms—the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state. Once we do that, we’ll see a revival of American greatness.

So my message to America is this: Believe in yourself, believe in this country, and let’s work together to restore the values that make America exceptional. If we do that, the future will be bright.

Lex: Vivek, thank you so much for your time and for sharing your thoughts today.

Vivek: Thank you, Lex. It’s been a great conversation.

Lex: Alright, dear friends, thank you for listening. As always, if you want to support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description below. And until next time, stay curious, stay thoughtful, and most importantly, stay kind.

And if you wanted to see President Trump’s appearance on the Lex Fridman podcast, I’ve got you covered….

President Trump Says He Will Release ENTIRE Epstein Client List When President!

President Trump just vowed to release and declassify a TON of information when he becomes President.

UFO Files…

JFK Files…

9/11 Files….

Epstein Files…

It’s ALL coming out!

Watch the short clip here:

Transcript:

“The Pentagon has released a few videos, and there have been anecdotal reports from fighter pilots. So a lot of people want to know, will you help push the Pentagon to release more footage, which a lot of people claim is available?”

“Oh yeah. Sure, I’ll do that. I would do that. I’d love to do that. I have to do that. But they are also pushing me on Kennedy, and I did release a lot, but I had people come to me and beg me not to do it. But I’ll be doing that very early on.”

“There’s a moment where you had some hesitation about releasing some of the documents on Epstein. Why the hesitation?”

“I’m not involved. I never went to his island, fortunately… But a lot of people did.”

“Why do you think so many smart, powerful people allowed him to get so close…”

“A lot of big people went to that island… But fortunately, I was not one of them. It’s just very strange for a lot of people that the list of clients who went to the island has not been made public.”

“Yeah. It’s very interesting, isn’t it? Probably will be, by the way.”

“So, if you’re able to, you’ll be—”

“Yeah, I’d certainly take a look at it… But yeah, I’d be inclined to do the Epstein. I’d have no problem with it.”

“That’s great.”

Now you know why they tried to assassinate him.

I have the full interview down below if you want to watch.

Keep reading….

President Trump: “Our Country Is Missing a Lot of Religion”

President Trump had a very interesting segment in his Lex Fridman interview today where he talks about religion.

I have a feeling a lot of you may agree with him, I know I do.

President Trump: “Our country is missing a lot of religion. I think it really was a much better place with religion. It was almost a guide. You want to be good to people. Without religion, there’s no real guardrails. I’d love to see us get back to more religion in this country.”

Watch here:

The full interview is only about 40 minutes but really fascinating to watch.

I thought Lex did ok.

I don’t think that Joe Rogan interview is coming any time soon.

I’d love to see President Trump go chat with PBD next, I think he’d absolutely hit it out of the park.

If you want to watch the full interview with Lex, I have it for you right here:

Avatar for Vaseline
Vaseline https://newspowergreen.biz.id

You May Also Like

More From Author