Trump vant. Oppsummering med Austin Rasmussen, leder i Republicans Abroad Norway

My name is Austin. As you said, I'm I'm the leader for Republicans abroad. I've been uh living in Norway for about 10 years. I'm as of this year a Norwegian citizen myself. Uh I came here for love. My wife is Norwegian. We have now um four very young and and um great uh children. Uh or so we think so. Um and uh my background I uh my academic background my degrees um degree is in political science and psychology. Um, professionally I I work in IT at the moment, but I used to work for the Republican party back during the 2012 election. Um, and then in addition to that, I was uh in the military for for 7 years and served in military intelligence. Um, and uh I was kind of primed for that. Prior to that, I joined the army when I was 17. Before that, I had left home at 14 to uh attend a milit ary academy, a boarding school and uh so went through through that program which um made it very easy to join the army afterward. But then I met my wife in my freshman year at university while in the army and as a student um and fell in love and had some important decisions to make which ultimately led me to your table here. Yeah. Yes. Republicans abroad.

Yeah, thank you. It uh was a very long night, but uh very exciting night and and satisfying night obviously. Uh I'm not surprised by the results. Um Well, I think uh a lot of the people who tend to be on screens and carry the title expert um uh who knows what's really in their minds, but they at least have to feel a little bit ashamed today. Um and and what they were telling us. It seems almost as if the industry learned nothing from 2016 and in part 2020 as well. For my for my own participation in in that arena, uh I kind of broke from my own habit there in um in pre elections, I have refrained from committing to any prediction before October. I generally like to wait for the October surprise. I the positions I hold, I'm often asked leading up to that point, who do you think's going to win? Who do you think's going to win? And it's too early to tell because between now, whenever I'm being asked and the election, politically speaking, is an eternity and anything can happen between now and then. But this election was a little bit different for me. I felt a high degree of confidence and certainty going all the way back to at least May, or at least I think that's the first time I was public. about my prediction in in the media uh that um a high degree of confidence in a Trump victory and there were there were um a variety of of reasons for that prediction and and I offered that my reasoning which I thought was sound and and my analysis which obviously was accurate um and um and so I'm I'm satisfied and and happy today but also not surprised. So RCP betting average. Mhm. Well, the the problem with these metrics in relying on them to to make predictions is um it's it's easy for us because they have been wrong now consistently. Uh it's easy to try and characterize the people behind the polls. Um but really they have nothing to gain by being wrong and so there's no incentive for them to be wrong. So I think it it deserves a deeper analysis as to why they are wrong. And I think a lot of that has with the bias. And of course, the betting market is is I believe naturally more accurate or or gives you a better sense of what's going on because there people have something to lose. They're putting their money where their mouth is or at least putting their money where where they feel they can earn a return.

Um and so I I have I think I got some reactions from some people in the press when I mentioned that well, you know, what what do you think of the polls? I'm not really looking at the polls, but the betting market has Trump favored, you know, in whatever was at that time

and I would get these confused looks and and and and reactions of why are you looking at the betting market and and for I think a lot of Norwegians it's a very foreign concept. Um and so these metrics one one when it was polling for example I I saw a report recently that found and I don't ask me how they got this sorry don't ask me how they got this number but they found whatever the number is I believe it was around 16% of constituents who were most likely to vote for Trump or Republican uh it was 16% higher that they would not participate when asked by a pollster how they were voting. Now why they would participate in a poll on their likelihood of participating in a poll, I don't know. I don't know how they got that number or that figure. But whatever the figure is, statistically speaking, it was significantly higher than the Democrats willingness or at least those who are sympathetic to Democrats willingness to answer these polls, which should have been a wake-up call a long time ago. Okay, you have these polls, but you're only pulling the people who are willing to talk to you. there's at least half of the nation who don't like you and don't trust you. And so how do you think that your analysis or the results, the metrics that you're kind of feeding us here, why should we trust you this time? And obviously we were right, we were right not to redemption. Yeah. Agencies. Mhm. Yeah. There's some there are some pollsters who got it right and there were some analysis of the polls that here in our lovely Norway for example um there's a um an an I don't know I think his title is technically media critic his name is George Gooding

and um I read a report that he published yesterday and he had a very incisive uh breakdown of what was going on in the polls which led him to his conclusion which was also correct. Um but it's not often that we see that kind of that kind of analysis. It's not often that we we see an analysis that's void of emotion and And that's what's important. But if you're going to have the emotion involved in in trying to pan this out, then you have to see it holistically. You have to look at the big picture. And what was problematic, I think a lot for for there were some um reports that came out as early as this spring. Um namely from the media research center, but but others as well that found on average the media coverage of Camala Har, she wasn't the candidate in the spring, but Biden at the time and then Harris. On average, the coverage of of the Democrat candidate was between 85 and and 90% positive. However they quantify that, I'm not entirely sure, but however they do it, the the results came out 85 to 90% positive for the Democrat candidate. On the other side, it was 85 to 90% negative coverage of Donald Trump.

Um, and it was really interesting to just see the the very abrupt heel turn that the media the the media industry took when Camala Harris I say when she was coronated as the candidate because she wasn't elected by her party um but when she when she was given that position and they removed Biden there was an instantaneous heel turn in these institutions that are faithful to the Democrat party and in itself that kind of heel turn is so condescending to the normal person who isn't consumed with politics like some of us are every day all the time or aren't news junkies like some of us are who whose only connection to politics are the pain points in their day-to-day lives and any kind of sensational headlines they might catch in between paying bills and taking care of children and working and whatever else. And so a lot of these people realize over time when it when when they keep see the consistency in it that they're being lied to or at least being duped somehow. We were supposed to believe when Kamala Harris it's almost as if the media wanted us to believe when Kamala Harris became the candidate that that time itself began with her candidacy that we would forget everything that that preceded her candidacy. For example, not one or two months before she took that position, senior Democrat strategists were openly talking in editorials and on the screen about how Camala Harris is a liability for the Democrat party and how she would be a liability for a second run for a Biden uh campaign. Uh and and then a lot of the roots of that concern, rightful concern uh can go you can we can go all way back to the 2020 election when Camala Harris ran against Biden and over 20 other candidates for president at that time. It was a big field and amongst that big field uh Camala Harris was was in the the lowest rung. She was um the least popular. She couldn't even in her own home state of California garner more than single-digit percentage in in support. So she has consistently been the least one of the least po popular politicians in America in in the contemporary American political landscape and how none of that was taken into account by those that are supposed to to report the news to us. How none of that was taken into account in calculating the the atmosphere and and whichever way the wind is blowing politically speaking is is that is the surprise of this election. Not Trump's victory, but the absolute failure of these institutions. journalist. Every every election in my lifetime straight face empty vessel.

Even even when when that switch was made uh as far as polls go, Biden still had a significant lead over Harris in popularity, taking them as individual politicians. She was still more popular. He was still more popular than she was. It was a bizarre um development, but it was also a development that many of us in the Republican party anticipated four years ago that Camala Harris would be after that job. And and we knew then that Biden was already well on the path to cognitive decline and uh and and Camala Harris was in the wings to inherit what he had. Uh and it wasn't going to work. It just could not work as Kamala Harris. Camala Harris was not picked because she was a qualified candidate. She was not picked because she's politically savvy. She was not picked for anything that you would generally pick a vice presidential candidate for. She was picked because she satisfied the progressive politics of the Democrat party. This wing of the party that has been running their party into the ground, this identity politicking And I think this victory for Trump puts the Democrat party in a position where they're going to have to do some real soulsearching. They're they're going to have to do a deep dive inward and figure out what's going on. And I don't think unless they're willing to distance themselves from that identity politicking. Uh I I think they're going to see a lot more results like they are seeing today. Um and uh yeah, so I mean that's where we are. Yeah. Unfortunately, I think it's indicative of where we are as a culture that um these we we're always going for these topshelf words to to make a point. I characterize Norwegian media coverage um of American politics specifically more as being something that's a production of reality TV more than it is um reporting the news and um and so that is part and parcel using terminology like this fascist the comparisons to Hitler. Uh the Norwegian media industry has has been and has has adored kind of the the Democrat party and and what we characterize as leftists in America for for a very long time and I think so long that they don't even remember what it was like not to adore that side of the politics. But what ultimately happens in that in that regard then is when they're presenting the picture of American politics, it's less than half of the picture. So Norwegians who consume this content and and especially those who consume only Norwegian content are not getting a full picture. analysis. They're not getting a holistic view of what's developing in the United States politically speaking. And uh and that that what that leaves is a lot of um misinformed and and and people ignorant of of that topic of course. Uh so I when it comes to to how this content is produced, a lot of it is to capitalize on engagement, profitable engagement, um to get clicks of course, but I think there's an element of narrative control here as well. Um and uh making sure that that Norwegians continue to agree because they all go in on one premise whether they're an expert and I use quotation marks when I say that um or or whether they go in uh as as a host of a show but it's always on the premise Democrats good Republicans bad and that's the starting point and once you have that as a starting point you've already lost all credibility as any kind of journalist you're now akin to a teenage blogger um more than you are a journalist um it's a very almost adolescent an immature way of of reporting this information. You may have personal views, but that shouldn't infect. This is your job. This is what we expect you to do. And I was at an arcade this morning and and having conversations with some of the producers there and and some of the other people that were slotted to be on. And I told them, I said, I long for a day that was before my time. Um where we had these journalists that spoke truth to power and not spoke to power. Um and uh and that reported the news that that they were ambitious to report was the news nobody wanted. to read or or someone didn't want them to publish.

Yes, that you have skin in the game and and it and it has real substantive content and value to society and to your audience that I I don't see any semblance of that uh anywhere. Of course, with exceptions, you know, George Gooding, I I have a high hold him in high regard and I have a respect for him. In fact, George Gooding I um uh because he is as competent as he is in what he does this media critic and and he's much better at navigating this system as I do. I gave him full mock to to um represent uh Republicans abroad against PFU uh or not against but in the PFU system when when we have those experiences that we're being either u under reported or or intentionally misinformed on on who who Republicans are and what there's an imbalance anyway demonic know Trump. To be honest with you, after the election is over and the campaign is over, there's not a lot of differences between the parties uh in in their day-to-day functions. The problem is in the United States, so much of our um government is controlled by lobby organizations. There's too much um cronyism in politics for a president to really be able to do anything radical. And besides that, I mean, you have a lot of this fearmonging fear-mongering about Trump. You know, he's going to be a dictator. He's going to be a fascist. He's going to be But quite frankly, in in American politics, if if you you know, you just take civics 101 and you would understand there is no mechanism for Trump to be any of those things as president. There's simply no mechanism in the American structure. for him to be any of those things. Anyone claiming otherwise has no clue what they're talking about despite having the title USA expert on NRK.

Um and uh so one on the one hand there's there's no mechanism and and the reason Trump appeals to so many Americans is because he is an outsider. He does challenge that status quo and a lot of people don't really care how he does it. They just want it done. Um and I don't think he did as good of a job in doing that in his first term, but I'm hoping he learned something. from that experience and does better in the second term and that and now in this term he doesn't have to worry about reelection. It's it's uh gloves off and and the prospect of bringing Elon Musk with Ron Paul as a consultant to gut federal spending and so but to answer your question the differences between the two parties. We do have a uni party problem in the United States much like we have here in Norway. There's um that the there's a lot more in our politics between Norway and America that we share in common than than a lot of Norwegians think. party.

Yes.

Yeah. Of course, as we all know, them pulling the ladder up and shutting uh other party competition out, but not just that, the the uni party problem. Um in Norway, for example, there's a general consensus on the philosophy of of how the government runs, right? There's no debate on on the philosophy is of taxation. It's just how much are you going to pay?

And um and so when you have that kind of uniarty problem in Norway, there's a little bit more of allowance for micro parties to prop up to compete with those bigger parties. But Even amongst those micro parties, they themselves aren't really parties. They are what we would call in America an interest group. They're not designed, they don't have a platform to to to, you know, be in a political leadership position. They have a platform to address, you know, the environment or feminism or, you know, religion or whatever. But give them the keys to the country tomorrow and they'd be lost. Trump. I I I get a always get a reaction out of the media because when I make a similar point because as far as the the general narrative goes is that democracy is important and the government always needs to be working and uh and and anyone who stands in the way of that stands in the way of democracy which of course I fundamentally disagree with when I am asked about the results and how I feel about them or when we're waiting on them. um you know if Trump wins but uh Democrats take Congress for example or vice versa, how do you feel about that? And and my answer to that is well if we're not electing an administration that's coming in with the priority of lowering taxes and deregulating then the next best thing for me is a gridlocked government.

Uh if if if it was some Republican who was a war hawk and and was was not prioritizing those values that are important to me, then I would vote for a Democrat congressman to get into office to keep that gridlock in place. Um so I I agree with that sentiment. Um, I have come around a bit more to Trump over the I was speaking at Storting earlier this year and I got a bit of reaction out of the audience because I I I I explained that I had voted for Trump two times before and this will be my third time voting for him in this election. And what's different now is I will be doing so with a much higher degree of enthusiasm than I did in the previous uh two elections. When I first voted for Trump in 2016, it was uh definitely with reluctance. I did not know what to expect from him. or what kind of politician he would be. Um, and I did not vote for him in the primary election. I I voted for Ran Paul. I'm in the Liberty Caucus of the Republican party. Um, and uh and that wasn't anything personal against Trump. It's just that Ran Paul aligns more with uh my position in in philosophy. But uh now we we stand here and I like the description of him being that long finger um pointing at um pointing at um uh pointing

and um and I I look forward to seeing what he does with that and I hope he takes the lessons that he's learned from the first term and better. But again, as I said before, for many Americans, this was it. This was all they wanted was this victory because he challenges that status quo and no matter what he does, it's going to shake up the institutions and establishment that run the federal government. But it's indicative of of I think a fading narrative. Um I you I have observed that in the media especially this campaign cycle the the there's a lot more contempt and vitrial um in in mainstream um publications for not just Trump but Republicans in general. But I have also observed a development in Norway over the last 8 years um from or um yeah 8 years um from 2016. Uh back then it was really taboo to say anything positive about Trump. It was it was for many people considered it social suicide to say that you could even dream of supporting Trump. To see where we are now compared to them uh there are a lot more Norwegians who are openly supportive of Trump and sympathetic to Republicans and their cause. and they're not as afraid or or worried about talking about it. If you go to pretty much any Norwegian newspaper on on social media and if they've published an article about Trump or Harris and look in the comment section, you can get a a temperature or you can get a an idea of how a lot of nor of course that's that's in a bubble on social media, but you get some sense. And this poll is another one of those metrics to show that once you lose that much of that generation, uh your narrative doesn't have much of a future at that point. Mhm. Marjgerie Taylor Green one more relevant to Norwegians is is there's this even just this morning when I was sitting in the green moot at NRK watching their network it was coming on they were showing that uh in reporting that Trump at um threatened to remove the United States from NATO, but he never made that threat. He never said that that's what he was going to do. He challenged NATO. He challenged the efficacy of NATO and he challenged the the financing of NATO. And since he's done that, what has happened? What has developed? Every almost every uh NATO ally has ponyied up and paid their bills. And a lot of the leaders of those nations have uh reluctantly admitted, hey, Trump was right. We should not have been relying on blue collar Americans to pay for our defense. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, I was contacted by a journalist at at subject subject um recently um explaining that they had been anonymously given some source material from their classroom. Uh but that source wanted to remain anonymous and and they were trying to uh they wanted to know if I was willing to discuss the content and and the implications of it. And of course I was willing um I have no problem it's no secret where I stand in all of this. Um And I I was surprised now that there was a long it was a kind of a bigger packet and I and I read the first I read through all of it. But in reading the introduction to the lesson, I thought it was, you know, somewhat fair. The first it was it was a very kind of generalized description of the Republican party and a little bit of its history and and the same for Democrats. I probably would have added a few things, but uh but generally speaking, for for that level of student, it was fair enough. Um but then continuing on after that point is where all kind of fell apart. You you had this really bizarre um and and fictitious interview that was generated by AI by by chat GPT um of of Trump and and how he might respond. And of course, I would presume that it's the teachers in charge of this lesson that are writing or crafting the prompts uh for that interview. Um and there was just enough points in that so-called interview to to for a young developing mind to to maybe say this is believable, you know, but there were a lot of things in there too that Trump has never said. It's it's an um a ridiculous exaggeration of of even taking, you know, Trump one difference one difference in his mentality this campaign cycle versus the past is he he somehow and right and and good for him for doing it cuz it was necessary. But he he found some way to um speak with warmth. He had had more warmth this election cycle than previous. And in that warmth uh comes uh a bit of a comedic element as well where he I mean the guy can talk at his rallies and and he he can be a bit of a comedian off the cuff. He's really talented in that way and he didn't really have that he kind of got he he kind of comes off to a lot of people as this you know stern kind of grandpa figure and he's done a good job selling it. But this interview would take even things that he said inest off the cuff that no one in any social setting would take seriously and then plugged it into the interview as if this is a policy statement. Um, a great comparison because this just happened last night. I was at at um, Bulbaka for uh, Drummond Tedda and there I was there with some other well there was a political scientist there. There was another dual citizen American there and then they also had um, Hans Hug uh, there to speak and he wasn't there in person. He's in Washington DC but to speak remotely and Hans Hug is is uh, chief of staff I believe is position for for Thomas Massie and I was really excited to to see him and speak and all that because as we all know that's my caucus of the party and the host of the event of the vulgva was was the polit redur of Drummondstein and she was the one queuing the questions for Hans Hook um to to push the conversation along and I he wasn't really giving her what she wanted I don't think you know one of the points he made for example is that these presidential elections are really not as um consequential and important as as we pretend they are in and we kind of make a a sporting event out of it. Um then she decided to reference and and when asked who he voted for, he said, "Well, I I don't really care for Trump, so I didn't vote for him and I definitely couldn't vote for Harris, but uh so what I did was I wrote Tam Thomas Massie on my ballot and voted for him for president." At the end of this segment, the the politude um then asked him, he said, "You know, there's this there's this Margaret Atwood who likes to talk about political developments and she has these concerns maybe not so much about Trump but about JD Vance. What do you think about that? And he kind of snickered. Well, I guess that's one view of things, you know, but I I really don't share those concerns. And I'm sitting there a guest that she thought for context Margaret Atwood is the author of A Handmaid's Tale. Her field is not politics. It's quite literally dystopian fiction. And why the politic of a fairly large newspaper would think this is a relevant question or viewpoint at all. I think a better question would be, oh, you voted for Thomas Massie for president. What do you think about Thomas Massie endorsing President Trump for president last week? That would have been more relevant, I think, the situation, but it wasn't. But this is part and parcel of how these things um unfold. And when it comes to this interview, the the AI interview, it was a lot of that kind of nonsequittor irrelevant topics and narratives to what Trump is actually running for. And then continuing further in the lesson material, you come across these posters of election posters and and Camala Harris on one side and Donald Trump on the other and Camala Harris and and the characterization of her was she's kind, she's sweet, she cares about everybody, you know, it's just really um big pie in the sky kind of stuff. And um and then under her name, they put all of the celebrity endorsements that she has, you know, Taylor Swift and and you know, old classic rock bands and all this. And then under Trump, it was Elon Musk and Trump. And he's a fascist. Oh, and Hitler endorses him, too. That is a serious issue. Arizona, for example, is one of the pioneer states when it comes to this um where parents are getting fed up with teachers and education professionals and and how they are um um teaching or educating their children or lack thereof. And in Norway, there isn't really that movement. There isn't that similar movement. But I'm a parent of four children here. Uh one of them is is just this year of school age. And my wife and I have discussed this obviously quite deeply and And uh as long as I can afford it, as long as my circumstances permit, I I could not in good conscience send my child to a public school u in Norway or the United States for that matter, but I live here in Norway. I could not I could not do that to my child. Now, of course, in Norway, there is no such thing as a real private school, but there are varied degrees of that, and that's where we choose to send our child. And if I were a parent of a child in this school with this kind of material, it doesn't matter what the orientation is. They could have called Trump Hitler, but could have just as easily called a Democrat some other evil name and and and promoted my side. It doesn't matter what the orientation is of the teachers. It's the principle of the matter. I would be very very concerned about having a child because this pedagogical approach is rarely if ever limited to one day in class. This extends to everything this teacher does. And I would want a serious review of their qualifications. I would want a serious review of the curriculum they they have in place and and what the rest of the year is going to look like for my children.

M Trump's. She always wanted to go to war with people. I don't want to go to war. She wanted to go She wanted to stay in Syria. I took them out. She wanted to stay in Iraq. I took him out. I mean, if it were up to her, we'd we'd be in 50 different countries. I don't blame him for sticking with his daughter, but his daughter is a very dumb individual. Very dumb. She's a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. Okay, let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face, you know, they're all warhawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, "Oh, gee, we'll let's send let's send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy. But she's a stupid person and I used to have I I'd have meetings with a lot of people and she always wanted to go to war with people. um or around that when he when he made that statement one I think subject actually had a very good character subject had a very good characterization of this is do Norwegian um media personalities understand English well enough to be able to report on American politics that is a very good question it may be inest or rhetorical but I think it's it's something that should be taken very seriously exactly it's one or the other thing it reminds me of is actually John Stewart of all people John Stewart um had a a clip. Now, he's not sympathetic to Trump at all. In fact, does not like Trump at all, is openly supportive of the Democrat party, but he had this um clip that he did on his show recently around that time. Uh when um I think it's actually what what preceded this statement was when Camala Harris was sitting on a stage with Liz Cheney as if Liz Cheney was somehow supposed to move the needle for Camala Harris. And John Stewart's characteriz or or analysis of this because he he showed that and he just positioned next to Trump going to a barber shop in the Bronx and and going to work at McDonald's for a shift. You know, these types, what is going on? The politics in America has turned inside out. You have the Republican going to the Bronx and working at McDonald's and the Democrat having a book club with the Cheney family. It's like, what's going on here? And of course, the point he's making in that statement is not that he wants to execute or to see Liz Cheney die. It's the fact that we know, we all remember that in the Bush administration, the Cheney I don't know if you call it a dynasty, but the the cartel or whatever, that family was uh instrumental in getting us involved in a 20-year uh conflict in the Middle East that had zero net positive in any way. I I've mentioned earlier, I'm I was in the army for 7 years. I never served in combat, but in my tenure in in intelligence and in the army, I buried a lot of people in that time. Uh I had an extra job on the honor guard, um which was secondary to to my primary job, but it was something you just you did because it was an honorable thing to do or the right thing to do. And and in that period, I buried a lot of people who died in that conflict. And when I speak to friends who fought not just once, but twice, some of them three, four times, I have yet to meet one who says we did something meaningful over there. Um, today, you know, back back in that time when the Cheney were running this, they were propagandizing us in that period to make us believe that we were over there fighting for freedom and that we were avenging those lost in September 11th and all. Of course, all of that came out to be lies. And Liz Cheney has uh was by the grace of her constituents given an opportunity to to reinvent the family name of Cheney. And she failed that. And and she turned her back on the party, she turned her back on her constituents. And she did it um out of political expediency. She thought by because the way the winds were unpredictable at that time, if she stuck the knife in the back of Donald Trump that she might get some political capital out of it. And it didn't turn out that way. So now she's in a pos ition. Not only did she fail to reinvent the Cheney name, and this is where a Democrat political um strategist kind of got it wrong, is that now they're in a position nobody likes the Cheney. They are a family with no political home. Your average Democrat will remember that time and will remember what the name Cheney is associated with. And in no way is she going to move the needle for Democrats. And Republicans who have over the last 20 years become the anti-war party. Those Neil Warhawks that were in the Bush administration and in that in that era of Republicans have found a very comfortable new home in the Democrat party. They are no longer welcome amongst Republicans. And so there has been a shift in branding. There has been a shift in in will and there's been a shift in perspective. And so now being in that position, only the media industry and only the elites in the political establishment would think to reference Liz Cheney as if it's a positive for moving the needle in politics. Only these two establishments would look but but but wait we have Liz Cheney. Doesn't that convince you? And they have to be that which just shows you they are in no way connected to real people. They are no way have their finger on the pulse of American politics. there.

Uh policy-wise, just taking someone like Tulsi Gabbard for example, there's not a lot I could agree with her on. But the thing is is I when she ran for president, I was asked as a kind of experiment question by someone in the media and say, "Okay, uh if you had to vote for a Democrat and not Donald Trump, who would you vote for?" In that time, Tulsi Gabbard was in the field. And I said, "I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard." In fact, in that time, at that time, I thought um honestly that Tulsi Gabbard of all candidates, both Democrat and Republican, may have been the only one who had any potential of actually diffusing the polarization in the United States. Realistically, putting policy aside and and philosophy aside, putting all that aside, I thought she had real potential for doing that. And so, I said I could have lived with that. And and second to her, I would I would choose Joe Biden. And the reason for that is cuz he's in cognitive decline and I think we'd be looking at a pretty lame duck uh presidency. Um but I think it's a pro benefit for the party. that Camala Harris has come over. I think it's a pro benefit that RFK has come over and it is not at all the same as Liz Cheney going over to the Democrat side. The difference is is people like Camala Harris and RFK can move the needle. They have their own constituency. They have a sect of people who do believe in them, who do support them, and are very passionate about what they have to say. So, I hope Trump is clever enough to include people like both Tulsi Gabbard, RFK, Elon Musk, Ron Paul that he gets this kind of diverse cabinet together with people who are who are very intelligent and highly skilled in their respective fields and and that to me those and to get different perspectives quite frankly because I might not agree with Tulsi Gabbert but she does represent a lot of people in that country and getting that perspective involved is important if not for anything other than to diffuse that polarization. Mhm. Trump presidency. So Christina I think that's major projection there to be honest with you. Uh when it comes to Trump winning this election, this victory, there's no other way to characterize it as one as the single biggest political comeback in American history. Um and when I say comeback, I mean he has come back. We're in landslide territory now. It looks like he's also going to get the popular vote. He's getting both houses of Congress. All of that after two impeachments, uh after two assassination attempts, after after all of the coverage that he gets in the media and and then after what's relevant to this, the weaponization of America's justice system to go after opposition to power. Uh and so they may fear this. I hope Trump instructs whoever he has in charge of the Justice Department to pursue criminals, to pursue anyone who has broken the law and investigate and and go into that endeavor with the old American traditional premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. by a jury of their peers. Uh I am not concerned. I think Trump has too much to do uh and too much on his plate to weaponize the justice system in the way that the Democrats have in in many ways put the United States on the brink of becoming a banana republic. But that is a Democrat tactic. That's not something we've seen yet from Republicans. RFK control overf I I have no issue with giving him a chance. Um there's a lot of things that RFK says when it comes to health policy that I agree with personally. Um that I'm I'm not particularly keen on his position on firearms, for example. I'm not particularly keen on on um a lot of his econom economic positions, but Trump is talking about putting him in charge of health. And as long as he can stay in his lane, then there's a lot that RFK brings to the table that speaks to me as a Republican voter. Bring it on. I can't wait. I hope that that's true. Uh, as far as tariffs go, principally speaking, I don't like the idea of tariffs. I just don't. Uh, and it's one of the weaknesses, I think, in Trump's platform. Um, one of the weaker planks of his platform is this tariff idea he has. That being said, I understand what he's thinking. I understand why he's inclined to to go that way. I hope that if he does pursue tariffs, he does so in a way that it's compens compensatory. And what I mean by that is if he implements tariffs, then at least the American people should be paying less in taxes uh and and inflation is then somehow managed in monetary policy. Um but that the the bottom line um is a net positive for Americans. If it's tariffs in place in addition to everything Americans have to contend with at the moment, especially um all of that leading to a much higher cost of living, then we have a problem. And and then I would myself be seriously critical of Trump even in the position I hold at the moment. Principally, I don't like it. I'm skeptical of it. I I um don't have a lot of faith in the success of tariffs and and what he's trying to do with them. So, I would agree with criticisms there. Um and and uh it's really hard for me to do any or say anything else um to defend that because it's it is as you anti-liberalist um to to organize the market in that way. So

when it comes to um Ukraine, I I if him and Congress work together and come up with and and their their conclusion is the support needs to stop, then I'm fine with that. Um not because I don't sympathize with the Ukrainian people, but because um we have been testing this idea of sending an endless amount of funds to that country. Uh as a solution to the problem and obviously that is not the solution to the problem. It's not working. Whatever we're doing is not working. I don't suspect that um the cut the funding will be cut off immediately. I think that what will first happen is that they will continue to give funding with the intention of phasing it out and any further funding that's that's sent to Ukraine and sent to that conflict will be done so with much much stricter conditions. Um and then it eventually be phased out. The what I'm really hoping for for Trump and and how he addresses the conflict in Ukraine is that he can be the first world leader in the west to actually talk about a achieving peace in the region because no world leader in the west is talking about that. Even Norway who has a historic reputation of being the channel that facilitates peace amongst conflicted nations even here in Norway there is no talk of peace and really in my view and my analysis of that conflict I don't see any other way out of it than getting both of the both sides at a table like this. on with the fundamental understanding that neither one of them is going to walk out of that room with everything they want. And that's something in the West that we have not been willing to to acknowledge. That's the only and and in the meantime, while we're kicking the can down the road and sending endless amounts of of American tax dollars and European uh tax dollars to that conflict, you have an entire generation of young men on both sides being slaughtered. So, I'm anti-war. I really don't care how the war ends, just as long as it ends. And and I hope Trump can can um pioneer the process to make that happen.