"Joe Rogan with Tulsi Gabbard and Jocko Willink"
Joe Rogan Experience #1391 (November 26, 2019)

[39:18] Tulsi: “This goes back to Military Decision Making Process 101: first you’ve got to understand the problem you’re facing. What’s the objective. Make sure it’s achievable. Then build your plan and then execute. That just doesn’t happen these days because it’s all about calling the other guys names. And having this race where something happens in the news for the political candidates running for President, it’s who can get their tweet out the fastest on the issue. We saw this most recently with the situation in Syria with the Kurds. Who can get the tweet out the fastest. People are asking me, “Hey. What do you have to say? What do you have to say?” I’m like: “I’m trying to understand the situation first. I’m actually trying to understand what happened and why we’re in the situation that we’re in. Once I do that, I’ll let you know what I think.”


Jocko Willink: “And that was another one of those end of the world scenarios that unfolded, you know. Trump pulled the troops out of that area and it was like, “Oh. The world is going to end.” And look, there was some bad stuff that happened. I get it. Some ISIS folks – “folks” – some ISIS terrorists, murderers escaped. I got that. Some Kurds were killed. Some bad stuff happened. It wasn’t the end of the world. My second deployment to Iraq, we started doing counter-insurgency operations instead of counter-terrorist operations. So we changed our strategy. And as we did this we were starting to kill a decent amount of bad guys, of these insurgents. So, a few weeks go by, and I got a message from up in my chain of command and they’re like “Hey, Jocko, we get that you’re doing these missions, but right now, we’re not seeing any changes in the metrics as far as enemy attacks that are happening. And, luckily, I had read the counter-insurgency manual that was written by General Petraeus and part of that explains that the average counter-insurgency takes seven years to work itself out. And I said, “Hey, boss, the average counter-insurgency takes seven years to flush itself out. It’s only been three weeks, can I have some time to work through this?” And he’s like, “OK. That makes sense.” But, my point is, the same thing here. We think that we can fully understand some news event within one hour of it happening. We don’t have any understanding. You need to let these things develop and see where the actual long-term effects are. We can’t be snapping judgments and making radical decisions, or split decisions when we have to actually assess what’s really going on. And the press is, sure, snap decision, snap decision, snap decision. And it’s comical to flip back and forth between the two: the left-wing media and the right-wing media. And one of them is “it’s the greatest decision ever,” and the other is “It’s the most horrible thing that ever happened,” and there you go. And no one can make even an assessment of what just happened because it just happened fourteen minutes ago. How about we see how it plays out?"


[42:18] Tulsi Gabbard: “It’s about being first, rather than actually being accurate. And presenting the American people with “Here’s what has gone on. You can form your own opinion. You can form your own conclusion. But here’s the course of events that took place. A, B, C, D, and E. That’s exactly what we’re missing most of the time."

Joe Rogan: “I think that was what we were talking about earlier. We’re being poisoned by this desire to have our information fed to us very quickly. And there’s so much information coming at us, we don’t have enough time to sit back and read a manual on how long it takes counter-insurgency efforts to reach fruition. The fact that that’s hitting you in the military, that you wouldd think the most pragmatic, the most disciplined people who understand the long game, that are playing 3-D chess. Those are the people you’d want telling people like you what you can and can’t do. The fact that that kind of thinking is even filtering down to special ops groups is crazy."

[43:16] Jocko Willink: “Well, what’s nice is that we do have decentralized command inside the military. When I’m telling my boss, this is what’s going on, my boss isn’t like, shut up and do what I told you to do. [he says] OK. Makes sense. Explain it to me. Got it. That makes sense. Cool. Move forward.” That’s a very positive thing in the military. Everyone thinks that the military is this rigid structured way where you just obey the chain of command and you don’t veer from that at all. But if my boss tells me to do something that doesn’t make any sense, I’m going to say, Hey, boss, this is actually a bad plan. We need to do it a different way. And if I have a good boss, he says “OH, I didn’t see that angle. And that’s another thing when Tulsi’s talking about how politicians come up with a plan and then we start executing the plan. Guess what? Once you start executing a plan, some other things are going to come to light. And you, as a leader, have to say “You know what? We started executing this. It’s going pretty good, BUT, I didn’t foresee this happening. I’m making an adjustment. Here it is. Here’s what we’re going to do. And I’m going to wait for that feedback to come to me. Promise, some people are so insecure or, slash, their ego is so big, that I’m just going to stick with the same plan, everyone else is dumb, you just need to see it through. No, actually we need to make some changes.”

Tulsi Gabbard: “Because they’re afraid of saying, “Hey, my initial assessment might have been inaccurate. Or wrong. And I think that that just points to the bigger point for the political leadership, the civilian leadership that sets the policy that the military executes is so often lacks that foresight. And that plan of actually looking. We pursue action A, here will be the second, third, and fourth order of effects. Here’s how the enemy or the opponent is likely to react. Here’s how other actors are likely to react to our action. So that we can try to anticipate that. This is how we would respond and how they’re likely to respond. Actually go through this so that we don’t go through this situation that we too often find ourselves in where we’re like, here’s the mission guys. Go for it. And then its a week or a month or a year later and “How did we find ourselves here? It’s like you’ve failed as leaders of our country. Failed to ask those questions about “what happens next?” After we go in and topple Saddam Hussein and we completely obliterate the entire Iraqi military, what actually happens next? What will be the consequences of this? What will be the costs to our troops? our military? What will be the costs to the Iraqi people? What will be the cost to American taxpayers? Do we know what the objective is? Is it achievable. What’s our end state? Our exit strategy? And I’ve seen this throughout my seven years sitting in Congress on the Foreign Affairs Committee, sitting on the Armed Services Committee. We’re questioning, providing oversight for the Department of Defense and the Department of State, asking leaders these questions. And we’re not given answers. Or we’re given ambiguous answers. Or things like, I asked Secretary Mattis once in a hearing about how Al Qaeda had gotten so strong in Syria. I mean right now they control an entire city, the city of Idlib, is controlled by Al Qaeda, and I asked him at that time why aren’t we going after Al Qaeda in Syria in a very serious and concerted way. And his answer was “It’s complicated” It’s complicated. And it’s frustrating to say the least. But it’s been a very clear window into the lack of foresight, good judgment, and just the ability to look at these challenges and situations. With that basic understanding, in a non-emotional way and understand what’s the objective costs and consequences before we launch this action:"

[note: How about so that we don’t launch this action in the first place?”]

[47:04] Joe Rogan: I want to talk about something you brought up briefly earlier about the media being, sort of, cheerleaders for a lot of these wars and military actions. Do you think that that happens because this ensures that they get access, or because conflict is good for their business? Do you think that it happens because if they don’t act as cheerleaders they don’t get access to the leaders, the important politicians and military leaders?"

[47:34] Tulsi Gabbard: “I think the underlying driver is that conflict is good for ratings.”

Joe Rogan: “That’s crazy that that is their decision about how to cover things."

Tulsi Gabbard: It’s the war machine that they’re a part of, that they’re a driving force for. There have been reports, I think you had Matt Taibbi here recently, where you’ve got journalists who are more, even papers, which are more like covering for their CIA relationships, rather than bringing forth a story, the truth, that the American people deserve to hear.”

[Note: why no mention of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, etc.”]

“So, I think there are other factors there that drive the media playing a heavily influential and dangerous and injurious force in continuing to push this war-mongering narrative. It’s costly in an immeasurable way.”

Joe Rogan: “The coverage is so influential. And that influence changes the way people accept or don’t accept things that are happening internationally. Do you remember when there was a time when Obama talked about attacking Syria [TG: that was in 2013] It was huge [TG: That was my first year in Congress.] It was like one of the biggest rejections of an idea nationally that I’ve ever seen, and he kind of backed off it. It was like “OK.”

Tulsi Gabbard: “I think that was one of the most brave decisions that he made, to back off from it. Where he actually, He didn’t take that position and that example of just kind of being the obstinate, stubborn, like, No, that’s what I said, and he drew this red line and “I’m not going to go back on it no matter what. No. He did. I think he listened to the American people and ultimately he chose diplomacy.”

[No mention of the British Parliament saying “No!” and the British Prime minister saying: “I get that.” No mention of punting to Congress. No mention of John Kerry and the Russians swooping in to rid Syria of its chemical weapons]

[50:02] Joe Rogan: “This is an area where people have been critical of you and your position on Syria and the fact that you had met with [President] Assad. [note: Can’t even use his official title as head of government]. And this is something that gets brought up in these little sound-byte things seeking to define you without any nuance or any complexity. Just let this little, tiny sentence or two define your position and then they can just repeat that without really knowing what they’re talking about. What is your position on Syria and Assad? And how did all this conflict and weirdness with you and the subject begin?"

Tulsi Gabbard: “It goes back to, again, the opposition that comes toward me from the political establishment, the corporate media, and the military-industrial complex because of the leadership and the voice I’ve been bringing calling for an end to regime-change wars. Whether we’re talking about the one in Iraq, Libya, and in Syria [doesn’t mention Afghanistan?] Look. My choice will always be toward diplomacy. Because if we [50:21 Repeats her mantra]: “If we lack the courage to meet with both adversaries and friends in the pursuit of our own national security and peace, the only alternative is war. Period. That’s the way it is. So I will always choose to maximize all diplomatic means, measures, talks and negotiations to further our interests of peace and national security, recognizing that war should always be the last resort, if necessary."

Joe Rogan: “Now, it’s very difficult for people to understand these things are insanely messy. And you saying you would always lean toward diplomacy does not mean that you support dictators, but that’s exactly the way they frame it. But if you look at the famous Hillary Clinton speech after Gadaffi was killed – “We came. We saw. He died” – and she was laughing. Libya is a failed state now. They have slaves that they’re auctioning off on youtube. You can watch slave auctions that someone filmed with their camera on their [cell] phone that they upload to youtube. Libya is gone. I mean, it’s a chaotic place right now.

[52:14] Joe Rogan: “Libya wasn’t good when Gaddafi was running Libya, but it wasn’t as bad as it is now” [BS. Libya under Gaddafi had the highest standard of living in Africa. Many social benefits like free housing and education …] So the idea of supporting Gadaffi is supporting a dictatorship and you’re a monster for supporting him. Maybe not. It’s kind of worse now, because the world is a very messy place."

[52:54]Tulsi Gabbard: “It’s not even a matter of “supporting.” It’s just saying that we’re not going to come in and overthrow you and your government. That’s the issue here and the contradiction when people are criticizing me for exercising diplomacy and calling for an end to a regime-change war that we’ve been waging in Syria since 2001. [No mention of Obama’s proclamation: “Assad must Go.”] And they’ll say, of course I was against overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There’s no consistency there. And I think that the issue with Libya that so often gets overlooked is “What will the consequences be of these regime-change wars. You said: “Libya is a completely failed state. There are more strongholds and terrorist organizations now than there ever were before when Gadaffi was there. The people of Libya are suffering far more than they were before. [Again, presumes that Libyans suffered before we invaded and destroyed the nation he had helped to build] [Note: Gadaffi was exploring the idea of selling his country’s oil in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Why no mention of this as the driving force behind the U.S. policy of destroying his government?]

“We also see this other effect on our own national security where our regime change war policy has undermined our ability to negotiate with Kim Jong Un in North Korea towards denuclearization. You have the leaders of North Korea have said time and again that We’re developing nuclear weapons as the only deterrent that will work against the United States coming in and overthrowing our government. They’ve said it, over and over and over again. And they’ve pointed to examples like Libya saying “Yu guys want to come in and negotiate with us to get rid of our nuclear weapons. You told Gadaffi the same thing. Gadaffi, get rid of your nuclear weapons program and we’ll leave you alone. And then you went in and overthrew Gadaffi. Why would this be any different with us? And then you’ve got John Bolton as then the National Security Director for Trump going on television, giving speeches saying ‘We’re going to approach North Korea with the Libya model.’ He said that. I think Trump is right, and I’ve said this publicly, to have direct negotiations with Kim Jong. But he hasn’t gotten anywhere and you’ve got to look at why. … No we’re not going to overthrow you and your government, Kim Jong Un, but on the other hand, you continuing the policies that directly undermine your ability to make that agreement that will hold. That will stay. And as a result, now, we have a North Korea that has a nuclear program that is continuing to escalate. Their capabilities are continuing to grow. And it poses a threat not only to my folks in Hawaii given our proximity to North Korea."

[Invokes Hawaii’s “proximity to Korea” ???]

Their capabilities are extending across the West Coast, across the country. Posing a very direct, existential threat to our country and to our people. And so you can see that decision that was made about Libya, these decisions that were ongoing, pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement. North Korea says: ‘You made an agreement with them. You got a different President elected. He tore up that agreement. Why should we think that it’s going to be any different with us? So these policy decisions are directly connected, ultimately, in having the effect of undermining our national security and making the American people less safe."

[55:51] Jocko Willink: “A couple of things come up with what you’re saying. Kind of my perspective on it. When we talk about, Hey, when you go in somewhere [note: why can't you use the word "invade"?], you’ve got to know what the end state is. You’ve got to know where you’re going and when you’re going to leave. You’ve got to have an exit strategy. What’s really hard about that is that we don’t necessarily know. And war is so unpredictable, that you may – there’s a chance that if you went in and killed Gadaffi, and all of a sudden some benevolent person steps up and you’ve got this flourishing democracy. [???!!!] What are the chances of that? They’re small, but you don’t know that it’s going to go into this completely failed state. [We don’t??!!] You have high hopes. Maybe your intel people are telling you this, you know, it’s like when we did the Bay of Pigs all the Cubans in America were like “When you guys hit the beaches, all the Cubans are going to be on our side and we’re good to go. All the Cubans who supported America were in America. We showed up there and they were like ‘What are you doing? No. This is our country.’ We don’t necessarily know where we’re going to go. Which means you’ve got to have, once again, the open mind to say, “This isn’t going the way we thought it was going to go. How are we going to adjust right now to prevent this from getting worse?” Which means what you really have to do is prior to [why not “instead of”] intervening in other countries, you have to assess what sacrifices you are willing to make [See Lord Farquad in Shrek] to get the result that is positive [for whom?] And those could be massive."

[57:11] You must have the will to kill. Because when you go to war, you are going to be killing people. You’re going to be killing the “enemy” and you’re going to be killing civilians. And that’s not what we’re trying to do. And believe me the U.S. military goes to great lengths to keep that from happening, but it’s going to happen. Because that’s war. So, you have to be willing to kill. You have to be willing to let that happen. AND you have to be willing to die. Because when you go to war, there’s going to be American kids that are not going to come home. And so you have to have those two wills. That’s before you go in [i.e., invade]. So you can’t look at it and say we’re going into Libya and remove this guy Gadaffi and it will probably turn out OK. And we don’t have to worry about what the sacrifices are going to be. So, five years. Four years."

Another thing to think about. When we went to war in World War Two and World War One [the Great War] those kids: 18 years old, 17 years old. Those kids went to war until the war was over. In the marines and in the Navy sometimes six month deployment, the Army sometimes fourteen month deployment and you’re going to rotate back to the states. In world war two: “We’re at war and you’ll be home when its over.” If that was our attitude going into the war. This is so important to us that Johnny is going to get on a ship and he’s going to sail to the Pacific. And if he comes home, it’s going to be in three years, four years, five years. That’s what we’re talking about. That’s the level of commitment we have. So when we start looking at “going in” to other countries we need to start thinking about what level of commitment do we really have to make this successful."

And even when I look at Iraq. I was in Iraq. I fought in Iraq. From a granular perspective. Being on the ground. Battle of Ramadi in 2006. The citizens of Ramadi, the normal citizens of Ramadi were overjoyed that we were there. And it was like we were angels. To go there and help them get rid of these heinous Al Qaeda insurgents, which eventually became ISIS. Unfortunately, we did a great job. Ramadi was the model of counter-insurgency for about seven years. And was less violent than many cities in America. And I had great pride, and at least understood the sacrifices that my friends who were killed, my friends that never came home, my friends who won’ t get to have kids. They did that. They gave all that and I was able to look around and say these folks in a foreign country. They have an opportunity for freedom. And unfortunately, because of politics and whatever, we said we’re not staying. We’re going to leave. As soon as we left, everybody who had been on the ground in Iraq said “Hmmm. This is not a good idea. This is probably not a good idea to bail out right now. We don’t need to leave a massive force there. You know, if we leave a couple of brigades of men, then, we’ll probably be able to handle any problems that happen. Well, we didn’t. We left completely [No, we didn’t. We still haven’t]. And those insurgents. They were like little embers. They started to get fired up again. And the next thing you know you had ISIS [graduates of U.S. prisons]. ISIS marched back into Ramadi. And the reports that we got from people on the ground that we knew said that when ISIS came in anyone who had worked with coalition forces at any level, they would murder the whole family. And there were like 500 families that were completely murdered."

So, when we talk about these things, we have to be very sure about what we’re going to do. We have to admit that we can’t predict, I don’t care how good you are or how many analysts you put on something, when you start throwing human nature into a leadership vacuum, all these things are going to break out. And it can go very, very bad. It can go well, too. But it can go very, very bad. And so what are we willing to sacrifice, what are we willing to spend. How many of our “brothers and sisters in uniform” are we willing to sacrifice to make this happen. And how does that help our national security. I believe now that, had we stayed there, Iraq would be a pretty strong, positive place right now. If we had, kind of, completed the mission the way that we should have. Again when we go back and say what countries is it worth going into? Where are we going to go? How do we draw that line? How do we make that decision? For me, this is what we do as leaders. We look at a situation. And sometimes you have to ask yourself: Do we have a moral obligation to go somewhere? If there is a genocide happening, If there is a Rwanda happening where 800,000 Tutsis are killed in a hundred days, with machetes [how about barrel bombs, white phosphorus, depleted uranium?]. If that’s going on do we have a moral obligation to try and do something to help that? That’s a decision you have to make. That’s a hard decision to make as leader. Because, guess what? You’re going to lose 30, 40, 100 Americans that are going in there to try and shut this thing down. But that’s the type of thing we need to think about [Do we, really have to?] And that is why, as a leader, you want to have an open mind. Have your ego completely out of it. Because it’s so easy to say “We’re America. This is what we do to win. No, actually. We made a bad decision and we’re actually leaving right now because we think because the expenditure from here on out will be too high. Unfortunately, I think in Iraq we paid the upfront expenditure we had invested lives and treasure to try and get that place stabilized [Noam Chomski: “obedient”] We had done a decent job we were almost there and we left early [before forever] and all of a sudden we look around and say “mmf oof.” That is why it is important to think about this thoroughly, as Tulsi said before you go” [How about do you don’t go in the first place]. We don’t know what’s going to happen."

[1:03:20] If you’re going to get into a street fight, Joe, as capable as you are, as capable as I am, at street fighting, That’s great. There’s that 10% chance the guy pulls out a knife and sticks it in your neck. Are you willing to sacrifice that. Now, if the guy’s doing something to an innocent person and you go: “You know, I’ve got to take that risk right now. I’m going to go in [note: why can't you use the word "intervene" or "butt in"?] and get this thing handled. Those are hard decisions to make. And we have to think through them.”

Joe Rogan: “ Very well said. If there was one thing when I brought you two together that I thought you might disagree on would be this stance on non-intervention foreign policy. I don’t even know if that’s the right word: “disagree.” But … and Rwanda ..."

[my note: Fuck this “left too early” shit]

[1:04:45] Tulsi doesn’t want her opposition to regime-change wars mistaken for “isolationism. … you should look for actual motives. … says we have to defeat jihadi terrorists … as warriors, as members in the military to go and “take out” those who seek to do us harm. … if we could form a coalition to stop genocide then we should do so. But the problem we’ve seen a lot more recently, you’ll see the word “genocide” being used very loosely as an excuse to go and say “go and topple this dictator who is inflicting genocide on their own people without it actually meeting the criteria of a genocide. When really there’s a conflict within the country, whether it be based on politics or power or whatever. That’s a very different thing that what we saw [who saw?] in Rwanda. … Where is the information coming from? Is it coming from people who are pushing it for their own interest."

[More blah about “global economy” that could turn into a hot war.]

IP theft a real thing while Trump puts out something every night on twitter undermining negotiators. More about how Trump is doing this in such an irresponsible way. …"

[1:30:22]... concerns about tech allowing back doors into our phones that violate our freedoms."

Tulsi: "The power that this corporation like Google to interfere in fair elections and what information they are willing to put in front of people."

Joe Rogan: "There are people pulling strings. Who? Why? Undefined. No investigation into it."

Tulsi: "Google and Facebook"

Joe Rogan: Having a direct on our discourse and all because of advertising."

[1:36:30] Jocko: “The policy you violated was being a viable candidate for President of the United States."

Tulsi: “Not only a viable candidate, but one who says “You guys are too fucking big. I’m going to break up these monopolies and provide the kind of oversight and accountability that will protect the consumer; will protect fair and honest discourse; protect freedom of speech. That’s the issue. And that’s the difference between me and, say, Mayor Pete, for example. Other candidates, he’s not the only one, but other candidates who refuse to take a strong position regarding the threat to our public discourse and our democracy that these tech giants have in the hands of just a few people."

[1:41:28] Jocko: “They’re ‘Tulsi Curious’ ”

Joe Rogan: “Banned for life from expressing a genuine opinion … if just social trends can dictate when a person can be removed from the conversation forever ..."

Jocko: “And meanwhile we have unlimited hardcore pornography on twitter, which is perfectly OK but we can’t say whatever that was … "

[1:50:00] Tulsi: “Cancel culture …"

[1:54:56] Tulsi: "Look at anti-trust laws and apply those laws to these tech giants ..."

[2:00:25] Jocko: “Someone wrote that “austere religious scholar”

Tulsi: “These are people who are asking to lead the most powerful nation in the world and yet they’re not leaders at all they’re followers."

[2:19:21] Joe Rogan: “Have you given any consideration to the fact that this is basically an impossible job, that everybody who gets in there ages a 150% – except Trump, he doesn’t seem to age at all. He looked like shit when he got in and looks exactly the same now. You’d think he looked like a skeleton by now; he’d be a corpse."

Tulsi Gabbard: "He eats a lot of fast food, I hear."

But no. Its like a duck rolling off his back, whatever it is. There is a lesson to be learned. He should really give a class on not giving a fuck. How it affects you personally."

Jocko: “He’s got a master’s degree in that."

Joe Rogan: “You can say you don’t give a fuck, but when the whole world is angry at you? Like half the world? Maybe more than half the world, half of America. And who knows what the rest of the world is upset at you. Not a lot of supporters internationally. … But have you given consideration to the fact that this is a job that no one really nails? No one gets out after four years or eight years and says “fucking Yeah! Nailed it!” No one nails it."

Tulsi Gabbard: "You’re creating all these visual images in my mind."

Joe Rogan: "No one gets out. Like “Obama, you did it bro!” Half the people are going to hate you no matter what. There’s a legit argument that it’s a ridiculous position. That to have one alpha chimp dominate the entire clan in 2019 when there’s three hundred twenty million of us seems insane… You really can’t pay attention to everything, whether it’s the economy or the environment or foreign policy or all the social issues. There’s so much going on. How can one person really have that job?"

[2:20:59] Tulsi: “… We have three branches of government. So the president alone does not have ultimate power over our government or over making decisions that impact the lives of Americans across this country. Our founders set up our government with this in mind. That we left the monarchy for a reason, so we don’t have one person with absolute power. Instead we have a president, a commander in chief who is leading our country working with the United States Congress, the House and Senate which is made up of people who are elected from their communities and from their states to form and shape the policies that do impact the lives of people in this country. So these decisions are not being made in a vacuum by one single individual but instead by a representative form of government with the judiciary branch as the check and balance to say: “This one does not fall in line with the Constitution of the United States, we’re going to throw that one out” making sure that these elected leaders are doing the right thing for the people. So the opportunity here is having a president who leads with the best interests of the people in mind and takes seriously the principles enshrined within our Constitution and does not abuse that executive power which we’ve seen growing in one consecutive administrstion after another across both party lines but that really takes seriously that oath that we all take as a member of Congress that we took in the military, that the President takes to uphold and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Jocko: “Trying to do the best you can …"

Joe Rogan: “Are you going to stick around in 2020. I don’t buy that gray hair. I think it’s fake. Will you be the youngest? And yet there is so much resistance. It just goes to show how people are so committed to the machine and yet so much resistance. … The machine is strong and it knows it doesn’t have a grip on you."

Tulsi Gabbard: “They don’t and they never will. And that’s creating fear and concern. I just think it’s important to point out the difference and when we talk about the people who are concerned about this… It is the people whose power is built on this, they’ve built this foundation of power based on the status quo and continuing this narrative that benefits the few, the most rich, the most powerful, the people who can purchase the most influence in Washington as opposed to the vast majority of people in this country, unfortunately, whose voices are not being heard in Washington whose concerns are not being met by and large and who exist outside this bubble of corruption in Washington and who is looking for a leader who is going to hear their voices and amplify them and hear their voices. That’s where we’ve got great opportunity and responsibility to reach those people all across this country and let them know who I am and to hear this message. And know that there is a choice between more of the same old same old and pay to play corruption that exists in Washington. The perpetuation of the same foreign policy of intervention and regime change that has failed us and cost us so much versus fresh leadership with a new approach that puts the interests of our country and peace and security at the forefront of decisions that are being made."

Joe Rogan: “.. the first time that politicians running for President are pushing back at the media machine like Andrew Yang recently said “I’m not going on MSBNC unless they apologize publicly for a lack of representation, they didn’t give him a chance to talk. Meanwhile there’s a giant well of support behind him as well."

Tulsi Gabbard: “Yes. People are seeing through the facade that is presented by the corporate media and I think that finding the power in our voices through alternative media, new media, social media, and that’s what we’re seeing with people, hey, they’ve given my campaign, $5, $10 a month, there is so much power that people are discovering within their own voices that can, that really is the only thing that can overcome the obstacles that the political and media establishment are placing before us and the people and having their voices heard."

Joe Rogan: “Who is in the lead now? It’s still Biden and behind Biden is Elizabeth Warren, the idea is?"

Tulsi Gabbard: “It seems like it. I think that when you look at some of these polls, they most often represent who is most well known in the country. Who is the most famous rather than who actually has the most support."

Joe Rogan: “And what about Elizabeth Warren? Wasn’t she a Republican? When did she become a Democrat?"

Tulsi: “I may be wrong, but wasn’t she in her forties? Early fifties? Something like that?"

Joe Rogan: “Do you get a chance to talk to these people?

Tulsi Gabbard: “Briefly. It’s usually in passing at campaign events, before the debates or something like that. I know Bernie Sanders best, obviously, I know a few of the others whom I have worked with in the Senate and Congress on different issues. Andrew Yang I’ve enjoyed getting to know. Marianne as well."

Joe Rogan:“I like him a lot more than I thought I would sitting down and talking to him for a few hours on a podcast, it’s like “You’re a person. You’re not some crazy old person who screams out at me. Because when you give a man thirty seconds, that’s all you can do.”

Tulsi: “… To make the next December debates, we need 200,000 donors and require a certain number of polls … the system helps those who take money from PACs and Lobbyists … The party has leverage over the individual in terms of campaign finances. … When I stopped taking money from lobbyists I got no calls."

Joe Rogan: “Have you ever had a conversation with someone who tried to influence your vote in one way or another?"

Tulsi: “… When I stopped taking PAC money, I stopped getting calls from lobbyists. None. Obviously we can’t talk to her if we’re not giving her money. … The party has never helped me in any of my elections. Ever. For city council, for state legislator, for Congress. “You were never there for me anyway, but I’ve seen it happen with some of my friends who maybe represent swing districts, Democrats who got elected in Republican districts are always going to have a really tough race. I have seen it happen in real time where those bully tactics come into play."