All-In Summit: Ro Khanna on China, political reform, major challenges facing the US and more
发布时间 2023-09-12 20:31:01 来源
摘要
This talk was recorded live at the All-In Summit 2023 at Royce Hall on UCLA's campus in Los Angeles.
(0:00) Besties welcome US Rep. Ro Khanna to AIS!
(0:52) Washington's view on China
(4:59) Business leaders working with China
(7:24) Diplomacy
(10:02) Steel
(16:48) Political reform
(21:30) Age of politicians
(29:09) Shadow governments
(32:29) Social Security
Follow Ro:
https://twitter.com/RoKhanna
Follow the besties:
https://twitter.com/chamath
https://linktr.ee/calacanis
https://twitter.com/DavidSacks
https://twitter.com/friedberg
Follow the pod:
https://twitter.com/theallinpod
https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast
Intro Music Credit:
https://rb.gy/tppkzl
https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg
Intro Video Credit:
https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect
Relevant links:
https://khanna.house.gov/media/press-releases/release-khanna-rubio-introduce-bill-restore-american-manufacturing-leadership
#allin #tech #news
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
Join me in welcoming Congressman Rokana to the stage. Thank you. I think you guys know Rokana. He's in his fourth term representing California's 17th District, which is Silicon Valley. And he's been a leading voice in Congress to restore American manufacturing and technology leadership. And so I think we want to talk to you about the chips bill and domestic politics.
让我们欢迎罗卡纳议员登上舞台。谢谢大家。我相信你们都认识罗卡纳，他正在第四个连任期中担任加州第17选区（即硅谷）的代表。他一直是国会中恢复美国制造业和技术领导地位的重要发声者。因此，我们希望与你讨论芯片法案和国内政治问题。
But we just finished a great conversation with Graham Allison about China. And I think you're also on a subcommittee on China. And so I think it'd be great to maybe get, start with just maybe an update from you on where is the thinking in Washington on China. It feels like in general, you know, other countries have hawks and doves. Whereas in the United States we have hawks and lunatics. Like I don't know of any doves in Washington. And you know, that's a little bit concerning.
我们刚刚与格雷厄姆·艾利森进行了一次关于中国的精彩对话。我想你也在中国的一个小组委员会工作。所以我认为从你那里获取一些关于华盛顿对中国的最新想法会非常好。总体来说，感觉在其他国家，人们有鹰派和鸽派之分。而在美国，我们有鹰派和疯子派。我并不知道华盛顿有哪些鸽派人物，这有点令人担忧。
I think there was a readout I think from the last time that I think we sent, I think Blinken might have gone to China. And the readout from the Chinese side, as they said, relations with the U.S. were the worst. They've ever been since diplomatic contacts were reestablished in the 1970s. So like Graham said, the relationship was going from, you know, worst to worst. You know, I guess describe to us what you're seeing in Washington. How worry should we be about this relationship? We should be concerned. Let me focus on three areas.
我认为上次我们派出的人员，可能是布林肯去了中国，他们给出了一份阐述，中国方面表示，自上世纪70年代外交接触以来，中美关系是有史以来最糟糕的。所以，正如格雷厄姆所说，这种关系正在从坏到更坏的方向发展。你知道的，描述一下你在华盛顿所看到的情况吧。我们应该担心。让我着重谈谈三个方面。
One where I agree with the bipartisan consensus. And that is that we should have never allowed China to accumulate the trade deficit that they have, the advantage with the United States. I mean, we have a trade deficit with China. India has a trade deficit with China. Japan has a trade deficit with China. South Korea has a trade deficit with China. I understand how the whole entire world said let's have all our production go to China.
我同意两党一致的观点，那就是我们不应该让中国积累起如此大规模的贸易逆差，从而对美国造成了优势。我的意思是，我们与中国存在贸易逆差，印度与中国存在贸易逆差，日本与中国存在贸易逆差，韩国与中国存在贸易逆差。我明白整个世界都说让我们的生产都转移到中国。
Let me ask you this. If we had said, you know, who needs Wall Street? Who needs the finance industry? London just do it. Or who needs a tech industry? Let Europe just do it. Or who needs Hollywood? Let Bollywood make all the movies. People would have left. And yet that's what we did with manufacturing. It's not that we need manufacturing as the penultimate industry. It's that we needed to be part of a well-balanced economy. And so the push to rebalance the economy with China to bring production back, which by the way is in China's own interest because they have over-indexed for an export production economy at the expense of their own consumers and at the expense of real wealth generation, which happens also in the finance and tech sectors. That I think there's a bipartisan push for and consensus and is the right policy. And that's, I think, actually what people in Pennsylvania and Ohio care the most about. Give us our jobs that went to China.
让我问你这个问题。如果我们说过，“谁需要华尔街？谁需要金融行业？伦敦自己来搞定。”或者“谁需要科技产业？让欧洲自己来搞定。”或者“谁需要好莱坞？让宝莱坞拍所有电影。”人们肯定离开了。然而这正是我们对制造业所做的。并不是说我们需要制造业作为终极产业，而是我们需要参与一个经济平衡的一部分。因此，重新平衡与中国的经济关系、把生产带回来的推动，顺便说一下这对中国自身利益也有好处，因为他们为出口生产经济过度依赖，牺牲了自己的消费者和真正的财富创造，金融和科技行业也是财富创造的重要部门。我认为这是一个两党都推崇并达成共识的正确政策。我认为宾夕法尼亚州和俄亥俄州的人们最关心的是给我们那些流失到中国的工作。
In terms of the defense on Taiwan, there is a difference of approaches. I am clearly off the belief that we should continue with the strategic ambiguity in one China policy. It was a policy that Kissinger had, and we had three communique after that. Now, what does that mean? It means simply that we can do everything possible to assist Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act to make sure that China is deterred from a military invasion of Taiwan. And we should. We should provide them long-range weapons. We should provide them our poons. We should provide them high-mars. But we should recognize that the future of China and Taiwan is to be determined by China and Taiwan in peaceful dialogue. But if China does anything to be coercive, the United States will do everything to assist Taiwan with the defense. That is the policy that has stood us well for 50 years, and I believe can continue to stand us well.
就台湾的防御而言，存在不同的方法。我明确地认为我们应该继续保持对中国一贯的战略模糊立场。这是基辛格采取的政策，之后我们有了三个公报。那么，这意味着什么呢？简单地说，这意味着我们可以尽一切可能在《与台湾关系法》的框架下协助台湾，确保中国不会对台湾进行军事入侵。我们应该这样做。我们应该提供给他们远程武器。我们应该提供给他们我们的导弹。我们应该提供给他们高炮。但我们应该认识到，中国和台湾的未来应该由中国和台湾通过和平对话来决定。但如果中国采取任何胁迫行为，美国将尽一切努力协助台湾进行防御。这是在过去50年中为我们带来好处的政策，我相信可以继续为我们带来好处。
Some people have demagogued this issue. I'm not going to name names saying, well, we're not prepared. We are prepared. I mean, we have the enabled superiority in the Pacific. We have our seventh fleet deployed. We have nuclear-powered submarines in the area. We will make sure that China is deterred. And then the final policy is, do we want to talk to them? I think we should talk to them. Like, I don't understand why you wouldn't have people having dialogue or communication with China. We had that in the height of the Cold War.
有些人在这个问题上耍弄民众情绪。我不会点名说谁，说我们没有准备好。我们已经准备好了。我的意思是，我们在太平洋地区取得了军事上的优势。我们的第七舰队已经部署了。我们在该地区拥有核动力潜艇。我们将确保中国被遏制。最后的政策是，我们是否想与他们交谈？我认为我们应该与他们交谈。就像，我不明白为什么你不愿意和中国进行对话或沟通。在冷战最激烈的时期，我们就是这样做的。
Thank you. Do they want to talk to us? It seems like they're not so talkative right now. We keep sending people over there and trying to start a dialogue. Oh, they talk to Elon. I mean, that's it. Elon showed up there, I think, before our secretary of state. And I'm being half serious, but our business leaders have more access into China than our military, political, or government leaders. That's a problem. Like, how is it that Bob Iger, Tim Cook, and Elon Musk are doing the diplomacy with China and get more meetings and more conversations? I'm on the job. They're in business together.
谢谢。他们想和我们谈话吗？现在看起来他们不太健谈。我们一直派人去那里，试图开始对话。哦，他们和埃隆说话。我是说，就这样。我想埃隆在我们的国务卿之前就到了那里。我说得半真半假，但是我们的商业领袖比我们的军事、政治或政府领导人更容易进入中国。这是一个问题。就像鲍勃·艾格尔、蒂姆·库克和埃隆·马斯克是如何与中国进行外交，并且得到更多的会议和对话。我在履行我的职责。他们在一起做生意。
Well, yeah, but then we need to have a policy where we're meeting them and helping determine what that party is. Why something with the person? We see the other half of it. What is happening or what is our political class saying that is short-circuiting the ability to go over there and actually have the meeting? They've invited me to come over and I said, I'm in the Democratic side of the house and I said, I've got to go on a bipartisan basis, I'm trying to get a Republican to go over with me and to get senators. And I said, I don't understand how we're not going over to have a conversation. You want to lecture them about the Uighurs. Let's go over and lecture them about the Uighurs. You want to make sure that they're not engaged in spying. Let's talk about that. But let's talk. There has not been a bipartisan congressional delegation to China since before COVID. This is not in the interest. I don't care whether you're a hawk or a dove, you have to engage.
嗯，是的，但是我们需要制定一项政策，我们要与他们会晤并帮助确定该政党是什么。为什么要跟个人有关？我们可以看到另一方面。我们的政治阶层到底在说什么，使得我们无法去那里开会？他们邀请我去访问，我说，我在民主党这边，我得以两党合作的方式去，并尝试找一个共和党人和一些参议员一起去。我说，我不明白为什么我们不去谈谈。你想要对他们演讲有关维吾尔人的问题。那我们去谈一谈维吾尔人的问题。你想要确保他们没有进行间谍活动。我们来谈谈这个。但是我们应该进行对话。自新冠疫情爆发以来，中国从未接待到一组由两党参议员组成的国会代表团。这并不符合利益。无论你是鹰派还是鸽派，你都必须参与其中。
Why? Because people are afraid of being seen as a weak group of people. Which group of people? Are you saying Republicans are afraid to? I don't want to. I think they're just saying. I'm just saying that's what you mean. David's sitting right there. Sorry, let me. There are a lot of crazy hawks in the GOP establishment. I think about the biggest lunatics in foreign policy in Washington, like someone like Lindsey Graham comes to mind. I'm not a defender of the GOP establishment on foreign policy. I'd like to see some changes there. But I think, you know, wrote a great point about the unwillingness to engage in diplomacy.
为什么？因为人们害怕被视为一个弱小的群体。哪个群体？你是说共和党人也害怕吗？我不想这样。我认为他们只是在说说而已。我只是在说你的意思。大卫就坐在那里。抱歉，让我来。在共和党建制派中有许多疯狂的鹰派。我想到了华盛顿外交政策中最疯狂的人，比如林赛·格雷厄姆这样的人。我并不是共和党建制派在外交政策上的辩护者。我希望看到一些变化。但我认为，你知道，你对不愿进行外交谈判的观点说得太对了。
One of the ways that you first really came to my attention, I became a fan of yours, is when you and the progressive caucus wrote a letter to the Biden administration encouraging there to be a diplomatic track on this Ukraine war, even as you are still saying, listen, we're going to provide Ukraine with everything it needs. But in addition, we simply want to have a diplomatic track with Russia. And the amazing thing was even suggesting that was so transgressive that I think virtually every member of the progressive caucus, except for you, retracted the letter. And so, you know, I really applaud you for sticking to your guns on that. And that's when.
你最初引起我的关注、让我成为你的粉丝之一的方式之一，是当你和进步派团队写信给拜登政府，鼓励在乌克兰战争中采取外交途径时。尽管你仍在说，我们将为乌克兰提供所需的一切，但我们也希望与俄罗斯保持外交沟通。而令人惊讶的是，即使是提出这个想法也被视为非常违规，以至于我认为几乎进步派团队的每个成员都撤回了这封信。因此，我真的很赞赏你在这个问题上坚持己见。那就是当时的情况。
APPLAUSE
掌声
And then there was also the episode in the Twitter files where you were encouraging the old Twitter management to realize that the censorship they were doing was back firing. So after those two things, I was like, this is a Democrat I can support. And we did a very successful fundraiser for you. So, I've been a fan of Rose for a while. But I think this unwillingness to engage in diplomacy and talking to the other side, because somehow it's weak or somehow it'll give the other side of life. Or is it anti-patriotic? Because that's the tone I've seen change in Silicon Valley in the last three years. You know, this summer I pointed out some friends we went to this thing, and suddenly everyone was anti-China. I couldn't believe it, because two summers ago, three summers ago, maybe it'll be a couple years, maybe it'll be a decade, something will happen, something's a brewing. This summer, it was like you're talking to China, you're not a patriot. You're with us or against us. And if you start to suggest anything otherwise, any sort of co-opetition or cooperation, you are un-American. Is that a sense you're getting that the tone has changed in Washington, that's sort of blanketed now?
然后还有Twitter文件中的一集，您鼓励旧的Twitter管理层意识到他们正在实施的审查政策适得其反。因此，在这两件事之后，我就觉得这是我可以支持的民主党人。我们还为您进行了非常成功的筹款活动。所以，我一直是Rose的粉丝。但是，我认为您不愿意进行外交和与对立方进行对话，因为这在某种程度上被认为是软弱的，或者会让对立方得利。或者这是反爱国的行为？因为在过去三年里，我看到硅谷的氛围发生了变化。今年夏天，我告诉一些朋友我们参加了一个活动，突然之间每个人都对中国持敌对态度，我简直不敢相信，因为两年前，三年前，也许会在几年、十年后发生一些事情，一些事情正在酝酿。而今年夏天，好像如果你与中国交流，你就不是爱国者。你要么和我们站在一起，要么和我们对立。如果你开始提出其他任何不同的建议，比如合作共赢或合作，你就是不爱国的。您是否感觉到，华盛顿的氛围已经发生了改变，变得普遍如此？
Yeah, I think there are a lot of people who assume that we are in a cold war, whereas I want to try to prevent the 21st century from defaulting to the same paradigms of the last one. But you know what's unpatriotic? The hollowing out of this country. Where were these voices for the past 40 years? Where you had corporations say we want to go to the cheapest labor, we want to go to the lowest environmental standards, we want to build profits, and we don't care what happens to Johnstown, Pennsylvania and Warren, Ohio and down River Michigan. We're going to hollow out the industry, the working class is going to fall behind, we're going to let wealth concentrate in a few areas. Do you think people who are growing up or in these areas are saying, you know what I really, really care about is the defense of Taiwan? No, they care about their jobs, they care about access to the American dream, they're wondering why this country let them down for the past 40 years. Patriotic would be to rebuild that.
是的，我认为有很多人认为我们正处于一场冷战，然而我希望尽力避免21世纪重蹈上个世纪的老套。但你知道什么是不爱国的吗？就是这个国家的空心化。在过去的40年里，这些声音在哪里呢？你们看到企业说我们要找最便宜的劳动力，我们要追求最低的环境标准，我们要追求利润，我们不关心约翰斯敦、宾夕法尼亚州华伦和密歇根州下游会发生什么。我们要削弱工业，工人阶级将会落后，我们允许财富在少数地区积聚。你认为在这些地区长大或生活的人会说，你知道吗，我真的很关心的是保卫台湾吗？不，他们关心的是自己的工作，他们关心的是能否实现美国梦，他们想知道为什么这个国家在过去的40年里让他们失望。爱国就意味着重建这一切。
You represent a district in Silicon Valley. And a lot of this has been driven by the leverage and we've gotten from technology and a lot of the beneficiaries of what you're saying are the shareholders, the employees, the executives of Silicon Valley technology companies. When they say to you, this is what the consumer market wants, they want an iPhone for $400, not for $2,000. How do we respond to the conversation about what market and what technology and what economic progress is demanding of them as representatives for their shareholders?
你代表着硅谷的一个区域。这里的发展很大程度上受到了科技的推动和我们从技术中获取的杠杆效应，而你所说的受益者大多是硅谷科技公司的股东、员工和高管们。当他们对你说消费市场需要一部售价为400美元的iPhone，而不是2000美元时，我们该如何回应关于市场需求、技术发展和经济进步对他们作为股东代表的要求？
I'm not a believer in autarky. I'm a believer in having enough self-sufficiency. Why can't we build the modern steel plants in the United States? We went from the largest exporter of steel to the largest importer of steel, the carbon footprint of steel is three times higher in China, nine of the 15 top steel companies are in China. We don't have a single one. Why can't we have the government work with the private sector to build modern steel plants in this country? Why don't we do that with aluminum and number of areas? But the answer to that question would be that we have the lowest unemployment in the history of our lifetimes and we're not allowing people into the country and we don't have people to work in steel factories.
我不相信自给自足。我相信有足够的自给能力。为什么我们不能在美国建立现代化的钢铁厂呢？我们从最大的钢铁出口国变成了最大的钢铁进口国，中国的钢铁碳足迹是美国的三倍，世界前15大钢铁公司中有九家在中国，而我们一个都没有。为什么我们不能让政府与私营部门合作在本国建设现代化的钢铁厂呢？为什么我们不针对铝等其它领域做同样的事情呢？但这个问题的答案可能是我们有着有史以来最低的失业率，我们不允许人们进入这个国家，我们没有足够的人力来从事钢铁工厂的工作。
I don't think that's what I'm asking him. Well, look, I'm a for immigration policy, but when people talk about the 3.5 unemployment rates, what they're not talking about is the lives of people who went from $30 jobs to $15 to $17 jobs who don't have the same economic security, who've seen healthcare costs increase, who've seen childcare costs increase, who've seen college costs increase, and aren't being able to buy houses. And so we're going around the governing class saying 3.5% unemployment, inflation's at 3%, and people are saying I'm paying $5 for gas. My kids don't have a future into the middle class, and we've lost the productive capacity in many parts of this country. I heard someone would Ray Dalio talk about. And here's where I think, and I think, look, I think Ray Dalio is a, is what makes America exceptional. Because Dalio would have been, would have been, and taking a little bit of liberty here, the person who would have been writing the article in the 1980s saying that Japan and Germany are going to be the dominant post-Cold War economy is not the United States, like Paul Samuelson predicted incorrectly. But that's precisely what makes us great, because we actually have voices who are skeptical and somewhat pessimistic to recharge us.
我不认为那是我问他的问题。看，我是支持移民政策的，但当人们谈论3.5%的失业率时，他们没有说的是那些从每小时30美元的工作转变为每小时15到17美元工作的人的生活，他们没有同样的经济保障，看到医疗费用增加，看到托儿费增加，看到大学费用增加，无法购买房屋。所以我们到处听到执政阶级说3.5%的失业率，3%的通货膨胀率，而人们却说他们花了5美元买汽油。我的孩子们没有未来进入中产阶级，我们失去了这个国家多个地区的生产能力。我听到有人说雷·达里奥。在这一点上，我想，我认为，看，我认为雷·达里奥是美国特别的地方。因为达里奥本来会，稍微放任一下，会是那个在20世纪80年代写文章说日本和德国将成为冷战后的主导经济体而非美国的人，就像保罗·萨缪尔森错误预测的那样。但这正是使我们伟大的原因，因为我们实际上有一些持怀疑和相对悲观的声音来鼓励我们。
The debt to GDP ratio matters if you can't increase the GDP. We need debt which is productive investment, which is actually going to grow the GDP. And to the extent that we have investments that are going to rebuild the productive base that's going to leverage all of this technology in the United States to help grow the economy, that actually is what's going to allow us to be and continue to lead.
债务与国内生产总值（GDP）比率的重要性在于如果无法增加GDP的话。我们需要有助于增长GDP的债务，即实际上会促进经济增长的投资。只要我们有投资能够重建生产基础并利用美国的科技来推动经济增长，这实际上将使我们能够继续领先。
And I think Shamad's question is to point, I mean, where are we, people aren't going to put the money in India or China. The issue is not immigration. The issue is that regulatory corrosion has taken simple decision-making hostage in America. I'll give you a simple example. If you're a pro-climate change, it is easier today to go into India and build a rare earth mine because it can get permitted within months than it is to even go to a red state like Nevada, because for five years, an effort to build the largest lithium reserve and to develop it has been held up because the BLM has been stuck in a lawsuit with some folks, environmentalists, who want to protect the upper land gross. Now, I'm not going to debate the value of the upper land gross except to say, that's been a five-year slog through hell, and this other one took 18 months and it's starting to ship. And I know this because I'm involved in both.
我认为Shamad的问题很中肯，我的意思是，我们身处何方？人们不会把钱放在印度或中国。问题不在于移民。问题在于监管的腐败让美国的简单决策无法顺利进行。我给你举个简单的例子。如果你支持气候变化，如今在印度建设一个稀土矿山要容易得多，因为能够在几个月内获得许可，而就连去内华达这样一个保守州都困难重重。五年来，建设最大的锂储备并进行开发的努力一直被阻拦，因为美国国土管理局与一些环保人士陷入了诉讼纠纷，后者想要保护上游土地。现在，我并不打算辩论上游土地的价值，只是说这五年来经历了许多艰难，而另一个项目只花了18个月就开始运营了。我知道这是因为我参与其中。
And so the reason why it's problematic is when somebody like Manchin tries to actually put in, permitting reform, simple things, and he has to hold up or kill another bill to try to get these things in, somehow the blob just comes in and then nothing changes. That's actually why nothing really productive can happen sometimes. If you want to build the right thing, it's just not possible. And what I want to understand is how much of that regulatory creep has just been independent of Democrats and Republicans? And what do you do to pull it back?
所以问题在于，当像曼钦这样的人试图实施许可改革，做一些简单的事情时，他不得不推迟或取消其他法案，以此来推动这些改革。然而，即使如此，这些改革工作也常常因为官僚体系的干预而无法实现。这就是为什么有时候真正有成效的事情很难发生的原因。如果你想做正确的事情，这几乎是不可能的。我想要了解的是，这种监管扩张在多大程度上与民主党和共和党无关？你们打算如何收紧这个局面？
Brant this law. Look, I am for a version of permitting reform. And I don't agree with all of Manchin. I didn't agree with the Mountain Valley Pipeline and the Willow Oil Drilling Project. So I want to be transparent and not just say to you what you may want to hear. But I do think we need permitting reform. We need permitting reform on the semiconductor bill, the chips bill, to make sure that those factories actually are getting built for nationally important projects. We need it for solar wind and for clean infrastructure. But I think it is a red here. We need it for housing in this state. We talk about one of the biggest regulatory captures. We aren't building enough housing in California because of restrictive zoning laws. But I think it's not sufficient to just say we lost our industry because we didn't have permitting. That's not why we lost steel. We lost steel. We lost aluminum. We lost paper. We lost textile. Because we didn't care. We said let those jobs go to where it would be cheaper. It doesn't matter. People can go get other jobs. The government has to finance.
Brant这个法律。听着，我赞成一种允许改革的版本。我不同意曼钦的所有观点。我不同意Mountain Valley Pipeline和Willow Oil Drilling Project。所以我想保持透明，而不只是告诉你你可能想听的话。但我确实认为我们需要许可改革。我们需要对半导体法案、芯片法案进行许可制度改革，以确保那些工厂能够为国家重要项目而建设。我们也需要对太阳能、风能和清洁基础设施进行许可改革。但我认为这是一个红线。我们需要在这个州为住房进行许可改革。我们讨论的是最大的监管问题之一。由于限制性的分区法律，加利福尼亚的住房建设不足。但我认为仅仅说我们失去了工业因为我们没有许可是不够的。这不是我们失去钢铁业的原因。我们失去了钢铁业。我们失去了铝业。我们失去了纸业。我们失去了纺织业。因为我们不关心。我们说让那些工作去更便宜地方。这无关紧要。人们可以找到其他工作。政府必须提供资金。
This is where I am a Democrat. If you look at what built America, it was Hamilton and it was Roosevelt. It was Roosevelt after during World War II. It wasn't just the New Deal. Unemployment until 1940 was at about 15%. Then Roosevelt goes to corporations and he says we're going to finance the production in this country. Unemployment falls to 4%. That sets up modern industry. We need to have an effort to rebuild America with government partnering with the private sector and labor to do that. Across the industrial Midwest, I have a bill with Rubio to do that to create a permanent economic development council. Marco Rubio. By the way, that's a common mission for this country that we can get behind. We need something that's going when my father came here in the 1960s. This was a country that went to the moon. This was where the energy was. We were building things. We need to recapture that to have a common purpose in this country. One place to do that is to be able to rebuild industry. Permitting is part of it, but we need a comprehensive strategy.
这就是我作为民主党人的立场。如果你看看建立美国的东西，可以说是由汉密尔顿和罗斯福所奠定的基础。尤其是在二战期间的罗斯福。这不仅仅是新政策的功劳。1940年之前，失业率一直保持在15%左右。然后罗斯福去找企业家，告诉他们我们要在国内投资生产。失业率迅速下降到4%。这奠定了现代工业的基础。我们需要政府与私营部门和劳动力合作，共同努力重建美国。在美国中部的工业区，我和鲁比奥共同推出了一项法案，旨在创建一个永久性的经济发展委员会。这是一个可供我们全国支持的共同任务。当我父亲在1960年代来到这个国家时，这是一个成功登月、充满活力、正在建设事物的国家。我们需要重新捕捉那种国家的共同目标。重建工业是实现这一目标的途径之一。审批是其中的一部分，但我们需要有一个全面的策略。
Can we talk about your proposal last week? I think it was a political reform proposal. Can you share some of the details of the announcement you made? I was surprised. I thought it was relatively, I've never been able to predict which tweet goes viral. There are times like, Elon has retweeted me. It doesn't go viral. None of us can. Only when sex retweets, maybe it goes viral.
我们可以谈一下你上周的提议吗？我记得那是一个政治改革的提案。你能分享一些你的公告细节吗？我非常惊讶，我一直无法预测哪条推文会走红。有时候，像埃隆这样转推我的时候，也不一定会走红。我们谁也无法预测。或许只有当性转推的时候，才可能会走红。
There are only two tweets that I've ever done that have gone viral this year. One was when I said the obvious, which is that Senator Feinstein should step aside. The second one was this political reform proposal. Let's have term limits for members of Congress and senators. Let's not have any corporate PAC money or any PAC money, any lobbyists. Let's have term limits for Supreme Court justices. Let's ban stock trading and also ban members of Congress, ban it for members of Congress. Also, ban members of Congress from becoming lobbyists.
今年，只有两条我发布的推文在网络上走红。其中一条是我说的显而易见的事实，即费恩斯坦参议员应该让位。第二条是关于这项政治改革提案的。让我们为国会议员和参议员设立任期限制。让我们不接受任何企业政治行动委员会及其资金，不接受任何游说者的资金。让我们为最高法院大法官设立任期限制。让我们禁止股票交易，并禁止国会议员从事股票交易。此外，还要禁止国会议员成为游说者。
This was common sense things. I think people are so starved for restoring trust. Here is the honest truth in my view. Most members of Congress, you may not disagree with this, but of the 435, at least 300 to 350 of good motives going in. They want to do the right thing. They may disagree. But we're in a situation where we have lost the trust of the American people. Most Americans think members of Congress are lying. They think they're corrupt. They think they're self-serving. I don't care that we have good intentions. That's the perception. So in that void stems the place for demagoguery because people are cynical about the process. We've got to take some bold steps to clean up the system so that people can do these big projects of rebuilding the country.
这是常识性的事情。我认为人们非常渴望恢复信任。以下是我个人的真实看法。国会的多数成员可能不会反对这一点，但在435名成员中，至少有300至350人怀有良好的动机。他们想做正确的事情。他们可能存在分歧。但我们现在的情况是，我们已经失去了美国人民的信任。大多数美国人认为国会成员在撒谎。他们认为他们腐败。他们认为他们只为自己谋利。我不在乎我们的良好意图。这就是大家的看法。因此，恶意煽动的空间得以滋生，因为人们对这个过程持怀疑态度。我们必须采取一些大胆的举措来清理这个系统，让人们能够进行这些重建国家的大型项目。
How did your coworkers take your position? The position of coworkers. How did your coworkers react? Well, they haven't been retweeting it. Okay, so just our constituents have been retweeted. Can you talk about politics of the career in answering that question? I've always had this bias against politics as a career. You know, kind of thinking about the intention of the founding fathers that the citizenry should serve. They should serve the people. They should go to government. They should do their civil duty to do their tour and then leave. And that building a career in politics. And I don't mean this in any negative kind of light on your choice, but that there is a career that is built in politics. That there is a return on that investment. That becomes a career that some of these politicians have made a lot of money pursuing. Is that the right thing? And how do you think about how we should have politicians elected and what the intention should be on who should be in that role for how long?
你的同事们对你的职位有何反应？同事的职位。你的同事们对此有何反应？嗯，他们没有转发。好的，所以只有我们的选民被转发了。你能谈谈回答这个问题时的职业政治吗？我一直对职业政治有偏见。你知道，考虑到国父们的初衷是公民应该服务于人民。他们应该进入政府。他们应该履行自己的公民义务，然后离开。而在政治中建立一种职业生涯。我并不是说你的选择有什么负面的意思，但是在政治中确实存在一种建立职业生涯的情况。这种投资会有回报。一些政治家通过追求政治赚了很多钱。这样做对吗？你如何思考我们应该如何选举政治家以及这个角色的意图应该是什么样的？
Well, there's obviously a problem in our country. And I don't say this with any person in mind because I don't want to get into too much trouble. But look at people. Look at Silicon Valley. It's one of the most dynamic places in the world. And you have people who are elected, they're still elected. They're before AOL and Yahoo. And we've had Facebook and Google and these are being disrupted by AI. We have dial politicians. And you think how is it that Silicon Valley isn't just producing more and different voices? I mean, there's something broken. The turnover rate of US members of Congress was less, according to the economists, than certain aristocratic and monarchies in Europe. What's broken? Fundraising or?
嗯，很明显我们的国家存在问题。我并没有指名道姓，因为我不想惹上太多麻烦。但看看人们吧。看看硅谷，它是世界上最充满活力的地方之一。然而我们选出来的人，他们仍然是被选出来的。他们是AOL和Yahoo时代的人。而我们现在有了Facebook和Google，这些公司正被人工智能所颠覆。我们有代表政治家们。你会想，为什么硅谷没有产生更多不同的声音呢？这里有一些问题。根据《经济学人》的说法，美国国会成员的换届率比欧洲某些贵族和君主制国家的还低。是什么出了问题？是筹款还是其他什么？
Well, there are a couple things. Or democracy or the way we do democracy. If you're an incumbent, you have a huge name, idea, advantage. I would never have, I mean, you're going to have Vino the one next time. And I had people like him and others when I was at 3% in the polls going up against someone at 60% saying, sure, this seems like a great plan. That's because in Silicon Valley, you can get that. And then when I lost, people are like, yeah, let's double down because you've got to have a couple failures. But that's so unusual. You don't have that in most places. So if you're going up against an incumbent, it's very, very hard. You have a huge disadvantage in funding.
嗯，有几件事情。要么是民主制度，要么是我们进行民主的方式。如果你是现任者，你有一个巨大的名字和观念方面的优势。我从来没有，我的意思是，下一次你将会有维诺这样的人。当我在民意调查中只有3%的支持率，对手却有60%的时候，我有像他和其他人这样的人支持我，人们都说，当然，这听起来是个好计划。这是因为在硅谷，你可以得到这种支持。然后当我失败了，人们却说，是啊，让我们二次下注，因为你必须有几次失败。但这是非常不寻常的。大多数地方都没有这样的机会。所以，如果你要对抗现任者，非常非常困难。你在资金方面有一个巨大的劣势。
So term limits solve that. Term limits solve that. People say, well, we should have the voters have the real choice. But the voters aren't having real choice. I mean, let's be real. There are only about 30, 40 actual congressional seats that are contested. So it's not like you have real choice in the manner because of the fundraising and the incumbency advantage. And I don't have a problem with people who want to dedicate themselves to public service, but just you don't have to do it in one position. You can do it in a lot of other ways.
任期限制能解决这个问题。任期限制可以解决这个问题。人们说，我们应该让选民有真正的选择权。但选民并没有真正的选择。说实在的，只有大约30到40个国会席位是受争议的。所以并没有真正的选择，这是因为筹款和现任优势的原因。我并不反对那些想要奉献自己于公共服务的人，但你并不必在同一个职位上做到这一点。你可以通过很多其他方式来做到。
Let's talk about age limits because it's front and center after what we saw at Mitch McConnell and everybody else. I don't want to single anybody out. But this feels like it's, I mean, Biden, obviously. Go ahead and sack fans of cheer. No, it just feels crazy that we have people this old running the country and they're obviously glitching and there's a problem here. We all see it. Why can't we just have an age limit and let people retire and enjoy their lives? I mean, or do you think we should have a cognitive test? I'm being a little funny here, but I'm dead serious. Like, why don't we have a cognitive test for the presidency, for these positions? And would you be in favor of that?
让我们来谈谈年龄限制，因为在米奇·麦康奈尔和其他人身上发生的事情之后，这成为了一件前所未有的大事。我不想单独指责任何人。但是这让我感觉，我是说，拜登，显然。继续支持喜欢欢呼的粉丝们。不，这只是感觉太不可思议了，我们有这么老的人在执掌国家事务，他们显然出现了故障，这里有一个问题。我们都看到了。为什么我们不能设立一个年龄限制，让人们退休享受生活呢？我是说，你认为我们应该进行认知测试吗？我只是开个小玩笑，但我是真的认真的。就是说，为什么我们不为总统和这些职位设立一个认知测试呢？你支持这么做吗？
I think the cognitive test should be the American public. But I think if you have the reforms, if you have the reforms that I'm talking about, of term limits, of getting the PAC money out, of getting the lobbyists money out, of having a fairer political system, then you'd give new voices an opportunity. You wouldn't be stuck with people just because they have name ID and fundraising running for these positions.
我认为认知测试应该是针对美国公众进行的。但是，我认为如果你能通过我所提到的任期限制、摒弃政治行动委员会资金、摒弃游说集团资金、建立更公平的政治体系等改革，那么你将给予新声音一个机会。你将不再局限于只是因为他们有知名度和筹款能力而参选这些职位的人。
But I will be a little bit philosophical about why we have a situation where we have so many people who are older in all these positions. And I think we're not going to see the dam break in 24, but I do think we'll see the dam break in the next cycle. And the reason is, look, this country is going through incredible change. The people who are down on America, I think, forget how exceptional it is what we're trying to do. We are 60% white, non-Hispanic. Canada is like 87% white. Britain, 87% white. Australia, 87% white. We are trying to become the first cohesive, multiracial, multithithic democracy in the history of the world. And the thing that there was going to be a linear line from Obama to that was, I think, naive. And some of what is happening is people feel that the challenge, that the country is changing, the country they knew was changing. And so people who are familiar, who have a familiarity, have an advantage in having that trust factor with the American public. But we have to, at some point, be willing to say, look, we need new leadership, but we need new leadership that's going to speak to people's concerns in the past. And that's why I talked about steel, because at least that's a job that people can relate to. We have to be empathetic to their narratives.
但我会对为什么我们的情况如此之多的老年人承担这些职务有点哲学上的思考。我认为我们不会在24年看见局势的突破，但我确实认为我们会在下一个周期中看到局势的突破。原因是这个国家正在经历着令人难以置信的变革。那些对美国感到失望的人，我认为他们忘记了我们所尝试做的事情是多么特殊。我们60%的人是白人，非西班牙裔。加拿大有87%的白人。英国有87%的白人。澳大利亚有87%的白人。我们正努力成为世界历史上第一个有凝聚力的多种族、多宗教的民主国家。从奥巴马到这个目标的线性联系，我认为是天真的。一些正在发生的事情是人们感到挑战，他们所了解的国家正在改变。因此，那些熟悉的人，在与美国公众建立信任因素方面具有优势。但我们必须在某个时候愿意说，我们需要新的领导，但我们需要新的领导来关注人们过去的关切。这就是为什么我谈到了钢铁，因为至少这是人们可以理解的一种工作。我们必须对他们的叙事表示同情。
What has the vake and RFK, which we have on the program, resonated with the American public to such an amazing extent? And what do you think of each of those individuals? You could be candid. This is all in.
这两位人物，Vake和RFK，在节目上引起了美国公众如此惊人的共鸣。你认为是什么让他们如此深入人心？对于他们每个人，你个人又有什么看法呢？你可以坦诚地说。我们对此一无保留地感兴趣。
Yeah. This is all in the Internet. You can go candid. You can go candid. You can. Thanks. You know, obviously I'm supporting President Biden, but I've said people should run and they should bring things in. And, you know, there are a lot of places I disagree with Robert Kennedy, but one place that I think he has raised important issues is why do we have so many overseas bases? Why do we have a defense budget that's approaching a trillion dollars? Why do we have so many handouts for pharmaceuticals? So my hope is that the places where he is raising some of those points will become part of our democratic platform. They're large places. I don't think you know, he's ready to be President of the United States, and I think I support President Biden, and I disagree with him on some of the.
是的，这都是在互联网上。你可以坦率地表达自己的观点。你可以坦率地表达自己的观点。你可以。谢谢。你知道，显然我支持拜登总统，但我曾经说过人们应该竞选并带来改变。还有，你知道，我与罗伯特·肯尼迪在很多地方持不同意见，但他提出了一些重要问题，比如为什么我们有那么多海外基地？我们的国防预算为什么接近1万亿美元？为什么给制药公司提供那么多补贴？因此，我希望他提出的这些观点能够成为我们民主党的一部分。这些观点影响深远。我不认为他已经准备好成为美国总统，我支持拜登总统，并且在一些方面与他意见不合。
Just. Okay. At least I'm candid. At least I'm candid. But for that. You just got to bring a dude by saying. I got to bring a dude.
就这样吧。好吧。至少我坦诚。至少我坦诚。但是为了那个。你只要说出一个人的名字。我得带个人来。
Now you know what it's like to be me in the YouTube comments. Yes.
现在你知道了在YouTube评论区中像我一样的感受了。是的。
Let's do the vake.
让我们做vake吧。
"vake"一词可能是个拼写错误，因此无法确定其确切含义。如果您能提供更多上下文信息，我将能更准确地翻译和解释。
Well, now. You know, here's the thing, though, with politicians, that are one of the problems. You don't know that people in this audience like Robert Kennedy Jr., but they go and they tell one audience once, and another audience, anything. It's something else. When I was at Saxe's house, or if I go to a progressive group, I tell the same thing to every audience. Because it's so appreciated. And I think ultimately people want that.
嗯，现在呢。你知道，这里的问题就是政客们，其中一个问题就是他们。你不知道这个听众喜欢罗伯特·肯尼迪·朱尼尔，但他们会一次告诉一个听众，另外一次告诉另一个听众，什么都有可能。这真是另外一回事。当我在萨克斯家的时候，或者我去一个进步组织，我会向每个听众都讲同样的事情。因为这是受欢迎的。我认为最终人们想要的就是这样。
Let's talk about the thing. Because he's 38 years old. Becoming a bit of a sensation, getting to double digits in the polls is nothing to, you know, shape. Yeah, it's pretty insignificant. Well, look, I think of him. I think people wanted. There's an underlying hunger for the next generation, but my sense is, well, what are the proposals? I mean, I disagreed with him when he was, in my view, demagoguing the Silicon Valley bank issue.
让我们谈谈这件事。因为他已经38岁了。在民意调查中得到两位数的支持，在某种程度上没有什么特别的。是的，这是相当微不足道的。嗯，我认为他是一个人们所期待的人物。对于下一代有一种潜在的渴望，但我的感觉是，那么他的提议是什么呢？我指的是，当他在我看来是在煽动对硅谷银行问题的批评时，我不同意他的观点。
I don't think he has, you know, to describe the January 6th insurrectionist, or people who broke into the Capitol, is nonviolent, peaceful protest, which is what Gandhi talked about with Satyagra, is a real distortion of what that movement was about. To say that the civil rights movement would have been better if you had people armed. Like, did he read Dr. King? I don't think that there were guns. So, do I think it speaks to our democracy? Look, why did I defend free speech? Because that's what I love about America. That anyone can have an opinion in this country, and that's part of the messy democracy. And to that extent, I'm glad we have all these candidates. But I have profound disagreements with him.
我认为他并没有理解1月6日暴动者或闯入国会大厦的人，他们进行的是非暴力、和平的抗议，这就是甘地谈到的Satyagra所说的，这是对该运动真实意义的扭曲。说如果民权运动中有武装人员会更好，这意味着他读过金博士的著作吗？我认为当时并没有枪支。所以，我认为这是否反映了我们的民主？看，我为什么捍卫言论自由？因为这是我喜欢美国的一部分。在这个国家，任何人都可以有自己的观点，这是民主过程中的一部分混乱。在这个意义上，我很高兴我们有这么多候选人。但是，我与他有根本性的分歧。
Do you think President Biden is intent on running because he has the energy and desire to be president? Or is that just the. Is that just more the expectation when you're the incumbent? And it's the opposite that's worse than, you know, the idea that then seeding power to the other side keeps him there to run.
你认为拜登总统是否有意继续任期，是因为他充满活力和渴望成为总统呢？还是这只是现任总统的一种期望？而与此相反，更糟糕的情况是，如果他交出权力让对方上台，这会让他继续任期。
Well, this is someone who ran for president three times. You know, you don't want to underestimate a person's ambition and their resolve. And I think people have underestimated Biden, both in the primary and against Trump. My sense is he probably thinks that he has the best chance to win against Donald Trump, who I think will be the nominee. And the reason is, because until other people in the Democratic Party can speak to folks in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, about the loss that they have felt in industry and can connect and have a real vision there, they're not going to be able to win those states. And my sense is he probably thinks that he has the best chance to win those states against Donald Trump.
这是一个曾经三次竞选总统的人。你知道，不要低估一个人的野心和决心。我认为人们在初选和对阵特朗普的时候都低估了拜登。我的感觉是他可能认为自己有最大的机会与特朗普竞选，我认为特朗普将成为提名者。原因是，在民主党内，除非其他人能够与宾夕法尼亚州、密歇根州和俄亥俄州等地的人们交流，并对他们在工业方面所遭受的损失有所了解，并能够建立真正的愿景，否则他们将无法赢得这些州。我觉得他可能认为自己有最大的机会在与特朗普竞选时赢得这些州。
Let me ask a question that's not Biden, because I think it applies to Biden and Trump. When Reagan left the presidency, we learned that he had early onset Alzheimer's, and that he had Alzheimer's, I think, like it started showing symptoms in the last two years of office, which is a very scary idea. And I think Reagan did a lot of great things, but the reality is it creates a risk of a shadow government, right? Of people that were unelected, people that we don't necessarily know, where do they stand? What are they about in charge of very critical aspects of the presidency? When you have two older individuals in that age spectrum now, either one could be president, definitely will be in the 80s. What do we do as a democracy to make sure that there is this check in balance? How does that happen when there could be people that are sort of in the shadows directing things of an 85-year-old that is less probabilistically likely of a 55-year-old, let's say?
让我提一个与拜登无关的问题，因为我认为这个问题适用于拜登和特朗普。当里根离任时，我们得知他患有早期阿尔茨海默病，并且他的阿尔茨海默病在最后两年开始出现症状，这是一个非常可怕的想法。我认为里根做了很多伟大的事情，但现实情况是，这会产生一个阴影政府的风险，对吗？这些未经选举的人，我们并不一定了解他们的观点，他们负责总统的非常关键的事务。现在，当两个年龄都较大的人都可能成为总统，他们都将步入80岁，作为一个民主国家，我们应该如何确保权力的制衡？当有可能有一些人隐藏在幕后指导一个85岁的人，而这个85岁的人相对于一个55岁的人来说，患病的可能性较大时，这是如何发生的呢？
Well, the answer to that is active democracy. I don't want to embarrass the audience, but how many people here have knocked on more than 500 doors on a political campaign? How many people here have hosted events for candidates? How many people here have encouraged friends to run for office? I just think that a large part of the group of Americans who are upset or dissatisfied are not engaged in the political process. And to be Plato said, the price of not being engaged in politics, it will be ruled by worse people. And so the reality is that if you want to have younger people engaged, if you want to have new voices, you've got to realize there's a huge power establishment and we've got to get active and be much more involved and then be strategic.
嗯，答案就是积极参与的民主制度。我不想让观众感到尴尬，但是在座的有多少人在政治竞选中敲过500多扇门呢？有多少人为候选人举办过活动？有多少人鼓励朋友参选？我认为，很多不满和愤怒的美国人并没有积极参与政治进程。正如柏拉图所说，不参与政治的代价将是被更糟糕的人统治。因此，现实情况是，如果你想让年轻人参与，如果你想要新声音，就必须认识到存在一个强大的权力机构，我们必须积极参与并更加全面地参与，然后进行战略规划。
The amount of people it's mind-boggling to me, you have the most brilliant business leaders who will obsess about every part of a business plan and think about what it takes to make a successful company and then they'll be like, oh, let's just run this guy for president and he's going to connect. What about the infrastructure in Iowa and New Hampshire and what it takes to win? There's no business plan. Being in politics, believe the free world is the hardest possible job to get in the world. Requiring the win-making presidential campaign is no joke. And I think people have to take it seriously, political activism if they want change.
对我来说，政治的人数令我难以置信。你们拥有最卓越的商业领袖，他们会将业务计划各个环节都研究透彻，并思考成功公司所需的要素，然后他们会说，噢，让这个人竞选总统，他就能串联起来。那爱荷华州和新罕布什尔州的基础设施呢？以及赢得选举所需要的条件？根本没有商业计划。在政治圈，我认为争取自由世界是世界上最难的工作。需要赢得总统竞选是一件大事。我认为如果人们想要变革，他们必须认真对待政治活动。
So let me just flip the conversation from external politics to the internal administration of our federal government. We heard from Graham Allison about the challenges of the Department of Defense. What's your view and what's the conversation on the ground about accountability, Department of Defense and elsewhere in the federal government? What are the measures that you think we should be taking and prioritizing to addressing these concerns? I always reference the John Stuart interview with the undersecretary of the defense for comptroller or whatever her title was and kind of says you couldn't pass it on it. It's like hundreds of billions of dollars, MIA.
所以，让我把话题从外部政治转移到我们联邦政府的内部管理上。我们从格雷厄姆·艾利森那里了解到了国防部所面临的挑战。你对此有什么看法？在联邦政府及其他地方的实际情况是怎样的？你认为我们应该采取什么措施来解决这些问题，优先考虑哪些问题？我总是引用约翰·斯图尔特与国防部的财务主管（或者她的任何头衔）的采访，她说好像数千亿美元失踪了。
And meanwhile, you know, we are ill-equipped for the conflict ahead potentially and the threatened conflict ahead. What's the solution and what's the conversation on the ground in DC on this matter and is it a priority for folks? It's not a priority. It should be a priority. Everyone will watch 60 minutes. You know it's a priority. I was the only person in the entire Armed Services Committee, 56 to 1, about no against the defense budget going to a trillion dollars, not because I don't believe in a strong defense, but because we are paying $310,000 for an oil pressure switch that NASA is paying $328 for. I didn't realize that's giving you such a softball.
同时，你知道，我们对可能发生的冲突以及威胁的冲突都没有做好准备。解决方案是什么？在DC，人们对此议题有何讨论？是否优先考虑了这个问题？很遗憾，并没有将其作为优先事项。而实际上，这应该是我们的首要任务。每个人都会观看60分钟的节目，你知道这是一个优先事项。我一个人在整个国防委员会中投下反对的票，56比1，这与我不相信强大的国防无关，而是因为我们花费31万美元购买一个油压开关，而NASA只需328美元。我没意识到这个问题会给你带来如此轻松的话题。
We're Raytheon in the Patriot Defense missile is making 40% profits, 50% profits that they admit. You have a situation $300 to $400 billion of defense contractors and no one is holding them accountable because they're giving money to people's campaigns and no one wants to be seen as weak on defense. Well, look, Harry Truman became president of the United States just by holding defense accountable in World War II. This should be a bipartisan issue and we should hold the defense department accountable to actually having real defense for the playing perspective.
雷神公司在“爱国者防御导弹”上获得了40%的利润，并且他们承认这个数字达到了50%。我们现在面临的问题是，防务承包商有3000至4000亿美元的合同，但却没有人对他们进行监督，因为他们在资助竞选活动中花了很多钱，而且没有人愿意被视为对国防软弱。我们可以看到，哈里·杜鲁门在二战中通过对国防进行严肃追责而成为美国总统。这个问题不应该成为党派之争，我们应该对国防部门进行监督，确保他们真正提供有效的国防。
Now, do Social Security and Medicare? You'll disagree with my plan on Social Security, but my view is that you shouldn't scrap the payroll tax cap and that would make Social Security solvent. But here is what I'll end with. Look, I think that there is two things that have divided this country deeply. One is the hollowing out in the working class, middle class across this country and what we need to do to have a common mission to rebuild it. And the other thing is kind of a moral smugness, a sense that we know and have the monopoly on the truth.
现在，社会保障和医疗保险怎么样？你可能不同意我的社会保障计划，但我认为你不应该取消工资税上限，这样才能使社会保障变得健康。但最后，我要说的是，我认为有两件事深深地分裂了这个国家。一方面是工人阶级和中产阶级在全国范围内的空洞化，我们需要共同 拥有一个重建经济的共同使命。另一方面是一种道德上的自负，一种认为我们拥有并垄断了真理的观念。
The amount of criticism that I have gotten for like going on Fox News or even coming to the All In Podcasts. I mean, look, try inviting some of my Democratic colleagues. It is staggering. We've got to have more humility to have conversations. We've got to have those conversations with empathy, not just judgment and think about where other people are coming from and their stories. And we've got to figure out how we're going to bring this country together.
我因为上福克斯新闻甚至参加All In播客节目而受到了很多批评。你看，试试邀请一些我的民主党同事来参加节目，这批评简直令人震惊。我们必须更谦虚地进行对话。我们必须以同理心而非判断的态度进行对话，考虑其他人的立场和他们的经历。我们必须想办法让这个国家走到一起。
Thank you. Well done. Thank you. That was great. I really appreciate this. Great job. Thank you. Thank you. That was fantastic. How's it going? It's awesome. It's awesome. You like your winter of pride? Great man, David Sasa. I'm doing all of it. And it's sad. We open source it to the fans and they just go crazy with me. You love me, that's nice. I'm sweet. You can hear all of it. I'm doing all of it. You're trying. What you're winter of pride. Bestest is all. I'm going to be a dog. I'm going to be a dog.
谢谢。干得好。谢谢。太棒了。我非常感激。做得很棒。谢谢。谢谢。太棒了。最近怎么样？太棒了。太棒了。你喜欢你的骄傲之冬吗？太棒了，大卫萨萨。我都搞定了。真让人难过。我们向粉丝公开了源代码，他们跟我一起疯狂。你喜欢我，太好了。我很可爱。你可以听到这一切。我都搞定了。你在努力。你喜欢你的骄傲之冬。最最最棒了。我要变成一只狗。我要变成一只狗。
We should all just get a little bit to have one big huge orgy because they're all this business. It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release. What? You're a bee. You're a bee. We need to get merced. Bestest is all. I'm going all the way. I'm going all the way. I'm doing all of it.
我们都应该一点点地参与到一个巨大的性爱派对中，因为这都是生意。就像是这种性紧张感，我们只是需要释放一下。什么？你是一只蜜蜂。你是一只蜜蜂。我们需要狂欢一下。最棒的事情就在这里。我会全力以赴。我会全程参与。我要做所有的事情。