>> a new episode of my podcast about grief and loss called all their eyes came out today. if you point your phone's camera to the qr code you see on the side of the screen, a link will show up on your phone that you can click and listen. last week, i spoke with president biden on the podcast, at the white house, about how he lives with grief. this new episode is called the greatest loss. it's about the pain of losing a baby, which is something we don't talk much about in this society. millions of women, including my mom, had experienced the child loss during pregnancy, or soon after. but their losses compounded by the silence that surrounds it. people don't know what to say, we don't say anything at all. in this episode, i speak with a texas mom named katie tolman who lost her first daughter when she was 23 weeks pregnant. it's extraordinarily powerful and moving interview. i hope you listen. it's available now on a podcast, spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. cnn town hall starts now. >> [applause] >> good evening and welcome to iowa, home of the first contracts of 2024 presidential race. now, just 33 days away, we are live here at grand view university in des moines, iowa, for cnn's town hall with ohio businessman vivek ramaswamy. i'm abby philip. mr. ramaswamy has made a name for himself with this in this field with his bold and sometimes converse your positions. now he is prepared to face's first test before voters right here in iowa, where he is competing with his rivals, including the current front-runner, former president on trump. but tonight's event is about the voters. mr. ramaswamy will have the opportunity to answer questions directly from iowans on the issues that will help determine who wins the republican nomination. and i will, of course, have some questions of my own. in the audience here are voters who say that they plan to participate in the iowa republican caucuses, both registered republicans and also voters who planned to register as republicans. to find tonight's question, as we reached out to republican affiliated groups as well as business groups, foreign associations, parent groups, young professional organizations, religious groups, and conservative advocacy organizations. guests of the ramaswamy campaign and of grandview university are here in the audience today but they will be asking questions. we have asked everyone here to be respectful to each other and to mr. ramaswamy so that the voters in this room and at home have a chance to hear from the candidate. now please welcome vivek ramaswamy. [applause] . >> good to see you. >> hey, guys. good to see you guys. thank you. >> i want to get right to the audience and bring in simone i enters from clive, iowa. she is self employed and serves on the board of a christian school in des moines. she's a republican but she says that she is still undecided. simone? >> thank you. first of all, welcome to iowa, and merry christmas from iowa. >> thank. you >> and thank you for really adding some important conversations to the campaign. so, similar commentators referred to you as maybe the younger trump, not a politician, which would place you running in the same lane as president trump for getting votes. so other than being younger, how would you differentiate yourself from president trump? >> i appreciate that question. i get it frequently. these days on the campaign trail. it's not just being younger. i think we are reaching a new generation of voters in this country. we've been to most of the college campuses across this state. i don't think it's something the republican party has done a great job of. there's a reason why these revivals are often led by a next generation. thomas jefferson was 33 years old when he wrote the declaration of independence. i'm an old man by comparison, actually, to thomas jefferson. and i will say this. it's going to take a president who, yes, comes from the outside, is a businessman. i believe it's gonna take an outsider with sharp elbows at times to come take on the federal bureaucracy, to shut down agencies that need to be shut down. to implement that 75% head count reduction i want to see in the federal bureaucracy. but it's also going to take a president who has a deep first person understanding of the law and the constitution. and those two things don't usually go together. i've actually hired many people in my career over the many companies that i have started. those two skills, you might have the academic law professor types over here, you might have the business types that are going to get something done, that's what gives me my sense of purpose in this race. i think i'm in the only person in this race who brings both of those attributes, an understanding in a commitment to the constitution. but combine that with being an outsider who can get things done. i think that's going to take the combination that actually takes to revive this economy and revive our constitutional republic. >> if i may, mister ramaswamy, simone's question was how you would be different from donald trump. so how would you differentiate yourself? >> policy areas. take the iowa carbon capture pipeline. the use of eminent domain. right here. it doesn't affect many in the national audience, but it affects people in this room. i see many heads nodding. you're familiar with this issue. they're using eminent domain to seize farmland, to build a carbon capture pipeline using federal subsidies. i'm the only candidate in this field who has taken a clear stand in being against those kinds of policies, the unconstitutional use of eminent domain. we can go into other specific examples but it comes down to a commitment to the constitution, a deep understanding of the constitution, swearing an oath to the constitution and keeping it, and combining that with being an outsider nds, reaching and inspiring the next generation of americans. i think i'm the best person in this race to do those things, and that's why i'm in it. >> let's bring in jacqueline recognize, a health care i.t. manager for west des moines. she's a republican who says she is undecided. jaclyn? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm going to switch it up. with the number of illegals, illegal aliens crossing the border daily, and being bused to cities across the united states, how do you plan to secure our border and remove illegals from the u.s.? >> that second part is the hard part. i'm glad you asked. let me start with the first part of how we will secure the border. these are basic things we can do. the country to put a man on the moon can get this done. it's not a question of political will. so one thing i have said is we will use our own military to secure our own border. right now we can to secure somebody else's border. let's use it to secure our own southern border. and our northern border as well. don't forget about that. our northern border has seen more illegal crossings this past year than the last 12 years combined. that's where this front is going. i visited both in the last several months. if we're able to do, that use our military, complete the border wall, stop federal aid to any central american country until they have secured their own borders for every country between venezuela and mexico. then i want to implement, i would, say the best mortar policies of all, which is ending the illegal incentives to be here. and birthright citizenship for the kids of illegal migrants, to whom the 14th amendment does not apply. and federal funding to sanctuary cities using our own taxpayer money, to pay effectively for breaking the rule of law. and then there is a hard question. i don't wanna leave you hanging on that. many people skip this one. but this was the hard one. i do believe that anybody who is in this country illegally needs to be returned to their country of origin. not because they are all bad people. in fact many of them are good people. many of them, if we're being honest, if we were in their shoes, and this president united states who has been giving them a weekend and on to come on over, if we were the toughest off maybe we would've doing the same thing. this isn't of value judgment about those people. it's a value judgment about this country. were founded on the rule of law. and as a father of two sons i can't look him in the war i until may have to follow the rules when our own government isn't following its own rules. that is the question of how. this is the part many republicans. skeptically 6000 or so i.c.e. agents on the front line. how can they tackle millions of illegal migrants who are in this country? here's the answer. there's a provision in the law. we don't need new laws. the existing laws, close to 87 g, it allows you to actually serve, at an ice agent to allow local law enforcement across this country to serve the warrants. that's 1 million long enforcement officers. we can then get that done. but again, all it takes is a president with a spine. and i swear nose to constitution, i intend to keep it. that's how i'm going to lead this country, and i think that's how we're gonna solve not only the border crisis but the crisis of the abandonment of the rule of law in this country. that's how i expect to lead. >> you just said that you would end birthright citizenship. >> for the kids of illegal -- >> of illegal immigrants, yes. there are currently millions of such people, children, some of them adults. would you retroactively strip them? >> great question, abby. glad you asked. at prospectively. so january 20th, 2025, forward, there's a concept in a law called reliance, if you relied on the government we can't retroactively date that. but from january 20th, 2025, going forward, if i'm the president, if you're born in this country as a kid of an illegal immigrant, you will not enjoy birthright citizenship. that's with the 14th amendment says. it's is it only applies subject to the jurisdiction there of. that's in the opening section of the 14th amendment when it talks about birthright citizenship. so in the same way, and want people to understand this because some people call this a controversial view. i don't think it needs to. be the kid of a mexican diplomat who is here legally and is mourning the united states, that person doesn't enjoy birthright citizenship. nobody contests that. well if the kid of a mexican diplomat is not here legally not does not enjoy birthright citizenship neither does or should the kid of a mexican or venezuelan migrant who's here illegally. there's been case law on. this is the one case that agrees with me on this, the current supreme court agrees with me 6 to 3 on this, all we need is a president with a spine. i go back to the question, abby, understands the constitution. i'm gonna swear nose to the constitution. i better darn well have read. it >> you suggested the courts would have to weigh in on this. would you agree with that? >> i expect this will go to the supreme court and i expect the current supreme court will agree 6 to 3 on this, based on my study of the court. >> let's turn to mike, an insurance company ceo from west des moines, and a trustee here at grand view. he's a republican who says he is deciding between you and florida governor ron desantis. mike? >> thank you. so what makes you think that putin would be responsive to your ukraine solution? >> before you jump in, mr. honest or me, i just want to ask you to remind the audience hear what the solution is that he is referring to. >> fair enough. i propose, and thank you for coming prepared, i appreciate that. i proposed a reasonable end to the ukrainian war. i don't think this war is advancing our interests. i think we're spending 200 billion dollars of our taxpayer money that would be better used to defend our own border. but even worse, i believe it's increasing the risk of world war iii, because it's driving russia further into china's hands. so what i proposed is a reasonable deal. it would allow ukraine to come out with its sovereignty intact. yes, it was some territorial concessions of the russians speaking regions in eastern ukraine. and a hard commitment that nato will not admit ukraine to nato but only if putin exits his military alliance with china. that russia china alliance is the top threat that we face today. so do i trust vladimir putin? of course not. is putin a great dictator? absolutely he is. but we will trust him to follow his self interest, just as he was he will trust us to follow hours. you asked a good question, i'm gonna go into this in detail. nixon did this in 1972 when he pulled lousy tongue out of the ussr. there was a china russian alliance back. they do we trust matthau? did we trust him no. when putin and xi jinping met, putin sends them weapons of weapons to indian venomous. ending a signal to china. china's and appreciate that. china wants to complete a railroad in northeast china to the ocean. russia is not letting. them so if you look closely there are kinks in that armor. but it's going to take a visionary leader who's going to say we're gonna use the ukraine war is an opportunity to say to russia, we'll open economic relations with russia as nixon did with mao, but we're going to require no more joint military exercises, no more military sales between russia and china. we can that alliance. that's the single most important thing the next president can do to reduce the risk of world war iii. and i want you to understand, i'm the only presidential candidate really talking about that russia china alliance. yet that is the single greatest threat we face to the united states of america today. and i do think it's going to take a leader coming from the outside of the existing foreign policy establishment. i will remind, you the one that got us into the wars in iraq in afghanistan where thousands of our sons and daughters want to go, diane seven truly international debt 20 years later, with the taliban still in charge in afghanistan and iraq still a broken country. isn't that a sign we need flesh fresh blood in our foreign policy establishment i, don't know what is. i think it's gonna take new leadership. >> staying on this ukraine topic, i want to follow up. you want to suspend support for ukraine in this war and get the united states out of that conflict. >> as part of this deal. >> if putin doesn't take you up on that deal, would you allow putin to use force to take all of ukraine if he wanted to? >> i think the deal we're gonna do now is actually going to allow ukraine to come out with its sovereignty intact which is not even the path that putin assigned. >> but if putin doesn't take you up on your deal which he may not -- >> i'm convinced of my ability to negotiate. >> if he decided to use force to march into kyiv, take all of ukraine, would you, as president of united states, allow that to happen? >> abby, that is a fictitious scenario. for a lot of reasons. part of the reason prudence been able to seize eastern ukraine is they have not had the same level of -- >> how is it a fictitious scenario? >> he tried to do it and has failed. >> he tried to do is the point i'm trying to. make >> any failed to do it. >> because united states back to ukraine. >> he failed to do it for a deeper reason. let's get into some details with the ukraine war, but if you want to go that we should go there. the eastern regions of ukraine, these are russian speaking regions. where most of the people who live there don't even view themselves really as part of ukraine. they have not been represented in ukrainian parliament for the better part of the blast decade, almost the entire last decade. so there was no counterinsurgency or resistance. that's why putin was successful in eastern ukraine but not the rest. so can i come back to principals. i've done a lot of scenarios. we can map out in advance, but the basic principles are this. russia's in military alliance with china. i'm gonna play hardball and require that russia weakened wrexit its military alliance with china. but we also have to stand by a few things, commitments that we made that nato should not admit ukraine to nato. we made that commitment. gorbachev made. it was made to gorbachev in 1990. we should keep that commitment as well. that level of diplomacy avoids us using, i mean look at the alternative. we're talking about sending another 61 billion dollars to ukraine. it is unclear to me or anybody else with the next hundred billion is going to do that the first hundred billion didn't accomplish. so i don't think throwing bad money after bad is gonna be the solution here. i think diplomacy is the solution. but it's going to take someone who is committed to advancing u.s. interests to get this done. so my foreign policy is avoid world war iii, declare independence from china, and then focus on securing our own homeland. >> i want to get back down to our audience member. we have a question now from nikole. she stormed owen's. she says she is clearly registered as a democrat but plans to switch parties and wants to participate in the republican caucuses it is undecided on which candidate to support. >> thank you and welcome. we're going to throw it back to the united states and talk a little bit about how you feel about the growing differential between the top 1% in the middle class in the u.s.. >>. . . . . . . . . . . ,. >> it doesn't work with caused by artificial papal well generated by federal policies. i would put fed back in its place. the reason wage growth hasn't gone up for the bottom 99%, the reason why i neuralyzer vestry wage growth is if it's a leading indicator of inflation to try to whack it down like a game of whack-a-mole for the last 30 years. up and fed back in its place. a single mandate for the u.s. fed, what is that? dollars debility. paired the dollar to commodities. that ties the hands of our government. that's a good thing. we had our greatest gdp growth in this country before we left the gold standard. i think that's telling. so when the dollar is stable, that's how you actually help the bottom 99% in this country. that's how you see real wage growth. and i want people to understand, we hear a lot of tales of mythology, i would say, about the current economy. let's make it simple what's going on. prices are going up. interest rates, including mortgage rates to buy your home are going up. but wages have remained flat. so i'm not going to be the person who comes in here and tells you. some people say i'm too pessimistic, but i'm a realist. i'm not gonna tell you the american dream is alive and well right now. it is not. it's a life and hanging on for life support. but i believe it can be. and i do think it's going to take now more than ever a ceo in the white house, somebody with fresh legs, somebody i believe from the next generation, to look at this differently, apply some basic economic common sense, and that starts with reforming the federal reserve. so thank you for that question. welcome. >> let me ask, you rob mr. ramaswamy, two years ago you floated the idea to dramatically increase the inheritance task tax up to 59%. you said then we should allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents. when you push for that is president? >> that's not part of my policy platform is president. one of the things people should know about me is that i'm not a standard candidate. i've written three books the last two years. they're not candidate books. i admire thomas jefferson because he's one of the truly intellectual prison presidents we've. that i did to explore ideas. one of the things 11th grade english teacher, mrs. smith taught me is that you don't really understand what you think until you can offer the best statement of an alternative you. so that's what i do for my books. i wrote my first book was woke king. i agree with 95% of what's in there. so my view is this. what we really need is a 12% flat tax across the board. ordinary income, capital gain, corporate, flatten it all out. and then here's how we get the money back for the system. and the cronies deductions. the deductions and loopholes and the rebates the lot of corporations, a lot of special interests have lobbied in. it's about 700 billion dollars a, year just attacks compliance costs, just the out of pocket costs, not even counting the time you spend preparing your taxes. give back to the people, that's how we restore, a big part of our economy, that's where we do. it >> is probably no surprise folks here that you very wealthy. do you want your wealth, to believe it should pass down to your children? >> that's an important question, actually. i want to speak on behalf of both my wife and i. my wife wanted to be here today, she's not here because she was treating cancer survivors at ohio state's hospital or hospital. she kept her full-time job we're going through this. in many cases our health care system, or i should say are sick care system, it's so broken that she doesn't even get paid for many the procedures she does to improve patients lives. that works for us because we are in a position that we are in. but i will tell you this. we are spending immense amounts of our families fortune on this campaign. we didn't inherit our wealth. but that's the inheritance we actually care about giving our kids. it's not a bunch of green pieces of paper. it is the country that allowed us to live the american dream that each of us did. my parents came to this country 40 years ago with no money. and yes, in a single generation i have gone on to found multiple multi billion dollar companies. didn't while marrying a poor girl, reason her two sons, following our faith in god. that is the american dream. that's the inheritance we care to give our kids. and speaking honestly, some people hate me for this, but i stand by it. i've gone to college. i went to harvard. my dad was working at ge he faced down layoffs under jack wilson's tenure. we had a solidly middle class upbringing with ups and downs along the way. i want to school with kids who were the kids of billionaires. that was new to me. i had never encountered that in my life until i go to harvard. i will tell you something, abby, it's interesting. many of them weren't happier for it. to the contrary, i was actually able to follow my hungry my passion in my ambition may be even more freely than many of my other fellow peers. i'm grateful to other peers who may not have had access to basic education but there are also those who don't have basic access to having their own ability to live the american dream because they're incomplete by the inheritance as well. i'm not one of these guys that finished sizes lavishing children with a bunch of wealth. i want to give them the country that allows them to live the american dream through meritocracy that a lot of poor and i have succeeded as well. >> i want to go back to the audience. we have hear riley miller, a law student and drake university at a clerk in the marion county attorney's office. he's a republican who is currently undecided. riley? >> thank you. on the debate stage you have somewhat abandoned the tact and diplomacy that i would look for in the president. i'm all for keeping it real and dogging the establishment, but there's a gravitas and then i look for in those that represent our country. how do you see the balance between keeping it being authentic and maintaining that presidential demeanor? >> i appreciate the question. i think it's very candid. this is what i love about iowa. i get tougher questions from you guys. that's why we're here. i appreciate that. look, here's a standard i used for holding myself to or holding any president to. i want to be able to work or kids in the eye and tell them the i want you to grow up and be like him. it's been a long time since we have held presidents to that standard. that's a standard i what you told me to. that's a high. standard i think about that in changing the way that i comport myself in different areas. am i going to tell my kids to go to school and be a bully? no i'm not. but i'm gonna tell them of somebody boys who were hits you you're going to hit the back ten times harder. and that is the way i'm going to leave this country. you have to be, as we see in our family, you have to be strong enough to protect your kindness. so if you watch debate carefully, i don't engage in four letter words. there are other candidates who've called me dame scum and worse. i didn't go after them, but i am not good after them. what i'm leading the united states the same room applies. if you hit us we hit you back ten times higher. there [applause] but not for the sake of being a bully. it's for protecting our inner kindness. and i think it's important that we have a president that has both of those attributes. i've done more podcast probably that most presidential candidates in history combined, mostly because podcasts are new, i will admit that. but i will tell you, it's a different setting. the book of ecclesiastes the t's teachers, that my faith used in the same, there's a time in place for everything. a time in place for fortitude, a time in place for justice, a time in place for mercy. i think it's going to take all of those attributes, every last ounce of each of those attributes, to stand for this country, to reunite this country and revive who we are. you don't want a wilting flower in the white house. but you also want somebody who understands what we are fighting for. that's a standard i want you to hold us to. we will aspire to hold ourselves to it. sometimes being a parent is what gives me my moral clarity. i hope, through the rest of this campaign, we're getting warmed up, i hope to be able to earn your trust. but yes i do have what it takes to tell you the truth. i'm not going to hide the truth from you. if you want someone who's gonna speak truth to power, vote for someone who's going to speak truth to you, the republican party, without sugarcoat-ing. also somebody who as you i believe want can stand for the ideals it will make our founding fathers proud and would make our children proud as well. >> speaking of those debates, let me ask you about something that you said at the debate last week. you used the phrase inside job to describe what happened on january 6th. the next day, capitol rioter allen hostile are highlighted your comments at his sentencing. he's going to prison for 11 years. he threatened members of congress. he brought a hatchet, knives, pepper spray, son buttons, tactical gear to the u.s. capitol. are you concerned that a convicted felon like that is now promoting your comments in court? >> here's my concern, abby. i want to tell you guys where i am at. if you had told me, close to three years ago, the january six 2021 would happen, if you told me when is a biotech ceo, not steeped in this world, just consuming passive media but focused on developing medicines, if you had told me january six was in any way inside job, the subject of government entrapment, i told you that was crazy talk. fringe conspiracy theory nonsense. i could tell you now, having gone somewhat deep in this, it's not. the reality is this. we do have a government first of all we have now learned that he lied to us systematically our last several years about the origin of covid-19. but the hunter biden laptop that we were told was false. by 51 cia experts another lies before we now know that it was true. you can go straight down the list of trump russian disinformation collusion hoax. all of it. now we come to january 6th. the reality is, we know that they were federal law enforcement agents in that field. we don't know how many. >> mr. ramaswamy -- >> let me just finish this is. born >> and we don't interrupt you here because you are saying that there. you're saying that there are federal agents, you're saying that there are federal agents. >> was it important. [applause] >> you are saying there are federal agents on jarry six. there is no evidence that there were federal agents in the crowd on january 6th. >> so why before congress when pressed on with the number was they didn't say there were none -- >> so you're saying that you have not seen any evidence -- >> we have seen multiple informants suggesting that there were, we know people who are fbi informants who asked -- >> well let me clarify -- >> it's very uncrtr you >> let . because >> what we have to do the. truth >> i medicare for my question because i want to make sure that you [applause] understand >> i understand. i was there. >> where is the evidence that the government had applied an inside job to to foment violence on january 6th? >> i'm not gonna let you put words in my mouth. why words of my mouth. >> where is the evidence the government was involved in planning or executing 26? >> i'm going to give you hard facts. and if i may, abby, i know this is gonna be uncomfortable, but we're gonna go through this and you can pushback on that, you can pushback on that. but let's do this fairly. why did they suppress footage of now what has been released, 200 hours of footage, shooting rubber ballots into the crowd, shooting tear gas into a crowd. we we didn't see before. we saw the response. now you see footage coming back of rolling out the red carpet for capital police allowing -- >> mr. ramaswamy, again [applause] the vast majority shows, mr. ramaswamy, the vast majority of the footage shows the officers being overwhelmed violence rioters. that's the story which. so >> here's what entrapment is. >> i'm not cherry-picking. let me finish. >> examples. -- >> contrary to the contrary. cherry-pick government? is a government cherry-picked 12 hours of footage [applause] when there was 200 hours. cherry-picking is the government not releasing the whole thing and let me finish one thing too because it's super important topic. >> so when -- you >> a civil libertarian issue about time. kidnapping. i want to keep going and being clear this is the same issue and same fbi, even partly fbi. three people who are in an alleged plot to kidnap gretchen whitmer were acquitted in the end of trial because it was entrapment. that is government agents put them up to do something the otherwise would've done. they gave them credit cards we're spending limits about $5, 000, encourage them to buy munitions, plant something they weren't otherwise willing to plan. so much so, when i want people at home to know this, especially cnn viewers to know this, is that one of the jurors went to those defendants and apologized afterwards, gave him a hug, apologized, seeing what the government had put a poor guy up to who had to go to some mexican restaurant across the street to get hot water. these people were exploited with credit cards up to $5,000. fbi agents putting them up to a kidnapping plot that we were told was true but was entrapment. people >> missed around the -- suwannee >> many of those people -- >> the government mister ramaswamy. >> the government cannot -- >> mr. almost for me i don't want to have to [applause] i don't want to have to interrupt you, i really don't. but i don't want you to mislead the audience here. >> i'm not. >> 14 people in >> the mainstream media has misled them. >> 14 people were charged in that plot. a majority of them were -- >> three were acquitted on the grounds of entrapment. that's a fact. was i wrong about? that was i wrong about what i said? i was not. three people were acquitted >> nine where convicted. >> but three where >> back to the trial. >> back to the gel. recent >> unacceptable in the united states. >> look, i just want people to understand, three people were acquitted, nine people were convicted. >> i heard you. >> but let me get back to our audience here. let's bring in joe. he's from des moines. he's a student at drake, and he's a republican who says that he supports whoever wins the nomination. joe? >> i love seeing you get fired up. [applause] >> i see a basketball player. i've been playing tennis with some great tennis players. good tennis player. >> some of the my boys play there, so it's awesome. a question about your legitimacy candidate has been your age. a 22-year-old college, one of the idea of having younger candidates and office, but how has this been a challenge for you? >> it's been a big challenge. frankly most caucus goers are three or four times your age. let's be real about that. they want people like you to come out to the caucus. we're going to college campuses for that reason. one of the things i want people to understand, what i see when i go to college campuses, i think actually many republican candidates are scared of facing off with your generation, actually. some of them hit me for being on tiktok because it reaches you all. i think we should be reaching out to young voters. what i see is a base of isn't a base of voters who is against our values. i see many in your generation in my generation that are lost, hungry for direction. the left will play prey on that vacuum with race, gender, sexuality, climate. i'm not gonna blame them. i want to blame the republican party. we've gotten lazy just criticizing that vision without offering our own vision, individual, family, nation, god. yes, i said the g word. that beats race gender sexuality and climate if we have the courage to actually stand for something. [applause] so i believe that your generation, i believe that we are at a tipping point. there is a reason. i talked about thomas genna jefferson, he was 33 when he wrote the declaration. he also invented the swivel chair. think about that founding spirit. where the pine pioneers. we're the explorers in this country, they are afraid, the people who nobody and no government dares to stop. that's who we are as americans. our pursuit of excellence, that's what makes us american. i think it's gonna take someone in your generation, somebody who is best days in life are still yet ahead, to see a country whose best days are still ahead of itself. i hope that's the case for me. i don't take every day for granted. every day we make is a new blessing, and i will leave it at that. i don't take tomorrow for granted. but i hope my best days are still ahead of me. and i think is a leader i reject this narrative that we have to be that nation in decline, that we have to be ancient rome. what's really began, sir? joe? i think you are nation, like you, is actually a little young. going through our own version of adolescents. figuring out who we are going to be when we grow up. and when you view it that way law makes sense. to me it does. you go through that identity crisis. you lose your way a little bit. i don't know about you but, i did some stupid things. but we are stronger for it when we get to our adulthood. on the other side. so no, i don't think we have to be that nation in decline. until the people in your class the same thing. we can still be a nation in our ascent. if the people in the last 25 years got us to where we are, maybe let's try something a little different. somebody with fresh legs. somebody may be the age of our founding fathers were when they signed the declaration. i think we're living a seven set 1776 moment [applause] . >> we've got much more ahead. we'll be right back with more from presidential candidate vivek ramaswamy. [applause] let's turn to jenny mitchell, she is an entomologist at iowa state university from goon iowa she is a republican who is currently undecided jenny >> thank you, thanks for being here and thanks for coming to iowa so much we appreciate your visits. freedom of religion is a part of our constitution and obviously a huge part of our country, what do you say to those who say that you can't be our president because your religion is not what our founding fathers base or country. and >> i would say that i respectfully disagree. people need to understand this about, me i would rather see the truth and lose an election, then to win by playing political snakes and ladders. if i wanted to map out my political career and sulfur that i could fake convert. i'm not going to do. that i'm going to tell you about my faith i'm hindu. i went to christian schools, i went to xavier in since the natty. and i've been on the board except for hiatus to run for president. i can tell you for confidence, that we share the same values said in common. i'll tell you about my, faith my faith teaches me that god puts each of us here for a purpose. that we have a moral duty to realize that purpose, the god works through us in different ways, but we are still equal because god resides in each of us i had what you would call not a traditional upbringing, but probably a very traditional upbringing, my parents taught me that family is the foundation, marriages sacred, divorce isn't some option that you prefer off a menu when things don't go your way. abstinence before marriage is the way to, go adultery is wrong. the good things in life involves sacrifice. are those foreign values in this country? i know it could look that way at times, you turn on the television, go to the movie theater, your local dei training at a company, or what they're teaching your kids at schools, that could seem a little unfamiliar. i don't think it's unfamiliar to most of us. i think those are the same judeo-christian values that i learned at st. annexed. we get to the ten commandments what today? say there is one true god. don't take his name in vain. observe the sabbath, respecting parents, don't kill, don't lie, don't she, don't steal, don't commit adultery. don't cut it. that's when it hit, meet we share the same values set in common. there's another core teaching in my faith which is, we don't get to choose who god works through. god chooses who got works through. so we get to the old testament a little bit further, along we get to the book of isaiah if many of you are familiar with that one. god chose cyrus. a gentle, all the way in persia. to lead the jewish people back to the promised land. and so yes, i believe god put us here for a purpose. my faith is what leads me. on this journey to run for president. my gratitude to this country is what -- even when we think about the founding fathers. i'm a fan of history. i talked about thomas jefferson earlier, will stick thomas jefferson. he was a decent actually. let's be honest about it. the left wants to rewrite our history and say he was a slave owner and an evil man. i reject. that we are not going to have anyone rewrite our history. thomas jefferson was a deity. he made the jefferson bible, do you know how he did it. he didn't believe in all the parts of the new testament, but he took a razor blade, by hand, and glued it together. and that made the jefferson bible which we have today. john adams wrote letters to thomas jefferson, became somewhat of a hindu scholar after he left. i think it's important to see our founding fathers three dimensionally, not the way that they've been rewritten post 1990 either. so yes, what i'd be the best president to spread christiana through this country. i would not. i would not be the best choice for that. but i also don't think that is the job of the u.s. president. but will i stand for the judeo-christian values that this nation was founded, on that i was raised in, even in the hindu faith. yes i will. you're darn right i will. as a young person, picking up on that strength from. earlier i think it's my responsibility to make faith. and patriotism, and family, and hard work, cool. again in this country. i think they're pretty cool, and i think that's my job as your next president, back to the first amendment. we will stand for religious -- in a way that neither republicans -- you get to practice your faith every pastor in this country gets to do his job without the government getting in their way. that's what i'm going to keep doing. [applause] >> let me ask you about a little bit of news. the supreme court announced that they would hear a case this term, that could potentially restrict ask says nationwide to a widely used abortion drug called mifepristone. you oppose abortion, but do you believe that the court should limit the distribution of this drug nationwide? >> i think this is a question, it's the job of the supreme court, who would've ever, thought to judge the law. this is a case about administrative law actually, this is less about the abortion question, and it's more about did the fda, exceed the scope of its statutory authority, when it approved methyl press stone on an emergency basis? and is emergency approval generally reserved for lifesaving therapies that can be brought to market quickly. this is a symptom, abby, of what's going on in the, administrative state. the people who elect to run the government, they are not even the ones who run the government right now. it's the bureaucrats in those three letter agencies that are pulling the string today, the most important supreme court case of our lifetime and i. want people to understand this came out last, time it's west virginia versus epa. it's a bit if congress did not expressively give an agency the right to write a regulation that it is unconstitutional. so it is my opinion, this is a supreme court civil matter but i'm pretty sure that they're going to come down where i am on. this that the fda exceeded its statutory authority and using emergency approval to approve something that does not fit congresses criteria for what actually comes as emergency approval. yes, i hope that we follow the law, i hope that's where they come down. if the people in this country disagree with that we have a mechanism for that. that's called the democratic process, do it through the front door of congress. there's one thing i'm going to do as next president it's shut down that fourth branch of government. rescind those unconstitutional federal regulations that congress never actually passed, and yes lay off 75% of the federal employees. >> i want to get to our, question just before we. do them [applause] just to everyone's clear, you do believe that the supreme court should ban method press down. >> i believe that the supreme court should put the fda back in its place. >> as it relates to this question but as it relates to this question do you believe that that will ultimately result in metal press don't being banned nationwide? >> i believe that it will result in mifepristone being taken off the market until they go through the process that is ordained for every other drug that does not go through emergency approval. the fda should follow the law of the rest of us do. it's a simple thing to. ask >> okay, i do want to go to our audience again. she is a professor at drake university who teaches in the college of business and education, she is a republican from west des moines who is undecided. clare >> thank you for spending time with our students at, drake is a professor i think that it's super important as a professor that we get that opportunity. thank you for spending time. with them as president what specific strategies would you implement to promote diversity and inclusion in leadership roles within both public and private sectors? how do you plan to support the advancement of underrepresented groups including women, in these areas? >> so i'll be very honest with you. i am going to share with you a thomas soul quoted stuck with me. if you care about somebody tell them the truth, at least what you believe. if you tell a carrot yourself you tell them what they want to hear. i've a feeling i'm not gonna tell you what you want to hear on this one. i think the diversity equity inclusion agenda has been of used. in the name of diversity, many of our universities totally sacrificed diversity of thought. in the name of equity we have perpetuated a lot of inequity and inequality of opportunity through formative action and otherwise. in the name of inclusion we have created a new culture of exclusion, where certain points of view are not welcome. so especially in a university setting what do i care about? diversity viewpoint, this is important actually. i think diversity of viewpoint is part of what this country was built. the best way to foster diversity of viewpoint is to screen candidates for the diversity of views. many look at the board members of many universities you have to, go through their, partisan affiliation it's not 80, 20 it's going to be like 90 ten in the other direction, it's completely at odds with the representation. if you value do i think that we are doing a good job of? that no i don't. it's not an accident but, in the name of diversity we have actually created a new culture of conformity. and so, i think it's entirely possible to have a group of ten people who look similar to another, who have different views. i think it's entirely possible to have a group of ten people who look different from one another, or who look the same as one another and have different views or the same as each other and have different. because i think the best way to screen candidates is for the diversity of their experiences, is to actually ask them about the diversity of their experiences. i think the use of these racial and gender quota systems, i think it actually created a new form of racism in the united states that otherwise would not have existed it's said to me i've hired. not because i was thinking about it consciously. plenty of black women in this campaign where the companies are. whatever i can tell you it saddens me when people look at someone who i hired on the basis of merit and say they only got that job because the race or gender. that doesn't do anybody. favor i think will be restored through meritocracy in this country. an embrace to embrace the thought, chances are that we are going to have. >> and that's a good place for us to pause. but we'll be back with more from presidential candidate vivek ramamaswamy. [applause] welcome back to cnn's town hall with presidential candidate vivek ramaswamy. let's go straight to the audience. this is rhonda mccoy. she was a retired french professor from west des moines. rhonda is a republican who is undecided in this primary. rhonda. >> good evening, thank you for being here. what is most important, or interesting thing that you have learned about people from iowa, during your travel through the state? >> i've learned a lot, i think iowans -- one thing i share in common with iowans is a letter full of canter. candor -- that's what i've been told when i came here, i found iowa candor. because that's the true form of nice. this is the tenth event that we're doing. we've done ten events like this across the state. i have felt that people appreciate that. we are visiting they called the full grass -- we are doing it times two in this year. and it doesn't feel like work to me. it feels like we're having open conversations. i find that they don't appreciate pre-can speeches, so i've mostly dispensed with that, or if i'm going to do it'll keep it two or five minutes. i find that they actually appreciate and relish open conversation in candor. i think that's one of the things that surprised me most. the other thing that i think surprised me was. somebody told me this we ran the des moines turkey truck. we were here on thanksgiving. and as i was, running somebody wished me good luck. but you not espaillat right? and this is an expression i learn from my parents a long time ago. she said you spell it w o r k. and i said you know what that sounds like something that my parents taught me when i was. little but i think it's also something that i found amongst i winds. the value people that work, hard because many of you do work hard. the cultural farmers, it's a culture of people who are business builders across this. state and i think that is something that we would do well to make a national value in this country again. to embrace hard work, give us back out a sense of purpose. that's how -- thank you >> will a big thank you to our audience, and thank you to mr. ramaswamy. thank you to our hosts here at grand view university, kaitlan collins is up next. thank you >> 33 days before the iowa caucuses in what is a closing message for the republican candidate to voters. part of that closing message was pushing a conspiracy theory about january six. mr. ramaswamy says the january six was an inside job. that's a claim that he first made at a debate recently. it was not. that is according to the fbi director, who i should know, because he is a lifelong republican who was appointed by finally president donald trump he. testified as much before congress. there are also hours of testimony, dozens of criminal indictments that say is much. for more on what mr. ramaswamy said. i want to bring in cnn's tom foreman. tom, obviously it's not a surprise that he was talking about january 6th, but it was part of the most animated part of his town hall. and of the message that he was pushing to voters. what did he say, what are the facts about what he said? >> this is a message caitlin, that he has pushed before he. always gets very energetic about, it and the crowd, to some degree always response. listen to what he said >> but if you had told me that january six wasn't any way an inside job, the subject of government entrapment, i would've told you that was crazy. top fringe conspiracy theory nonsense. i can tell you now having gone somewhat deep in this it's, not barrasso. what he went on to after this was to say things like, they rolled out the red carpet at the capitol police to let the people come inside. there were federal agents in the crowd that were instigating the violence. he nibbles around this in many appearances, he did again tonight that they were involved in this, and that there was suppression of evidence of how this was an inside job. make no doubt about, it there is no evidence that what he is saying is true, to the contrary. the fbi director, christopher wray said, it's completely wrong that there were any agents in the crowd trying to instigate this. when you look through the, video there is no evidence of police rolling out the red carpet. there is evidence at times, of police standing by while people walk past him, which seems to be a measure of simply the fact, that people either leaving, or the police were so overwhelmed that it was at the point where there was nothing else to do. most importantly, though look at what the courts have done as they've looked at this. as of last july, 30 months into it, about 350 department of justice, 350 dependents had been charged with assault, or resisting it impeding officers. how many -- attacks on the officers in question here. there have been many convictions, there have been many