vice-presidential elections. we are not changing -- we're just bumping everything else backwards behind -- >> that would be my motion. >> got it. >> request for information, madam chair, mic two. chair,, l. request for information, mic 2. chair mcardle: yes. >> is the intention of the mover to place a time limit on the presidential debates? chair mcardle: is that the intention of the mover to please a time limit on the debate? if i could weigh and, i would recommend no more than one hour.

delegate: i would say two hours, ma'am, 90 minutes would be sufficient, i think. so i would move it to against 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. chair mcardle: ok. delegate: microphone 1. i have a motion to amend the amendments to it if i understand what he is doing, he is one thing is a time certain for the debate to include the presidential candidates, including mr. termott. chair mcardle: i am going to announce that the winner of the debate straw poll was clint russell. [laughter] come with 52%. 342 votes.

larry gave her give him a run of his money was 47% and 305 votes. thank you so much to both of you. congratulations for being on the stage. [laughter] it takes a lot of guts to face this delegation. i also want to say that we have a couple of really special guests in the audience. we have maj teray and lili williams who are both amazing second amendment advocates. thank you both! [applause] we are going to take a very short break. at 8:10, we will be back to see clint debate vivek. let's make it happen! [chatter]

[chatter]

announcer: we are bringing you continuing live coverage of the libertarian national convention in washington, d.c. waiting for the next force her to get underway. we should see one of the vice presidential candidates, clint russell, debate former presidential candidate vivek ramaswamy. live coverage here on c-span. [chatter]

announcer: consulting everything you live coverage of that libertarian convention. we are back at the convention tomorrow with remarks from presumptive republican nominee donald trump. it will start at eight :00 p.m. eastern tomorrow here on c-span.

chair mcardle: good evening. [applause] hey everyone. let's get sound on this microphone. good evening. oh, no, not yet. yes. yes. [cheers and applause] chair mcardle: welcome back. we are a couple of minutes behind schedule. vivek ramaswamy is here. [applause] he knows how much you value your time for that he would like to talk to you a few minutes before the debate so that we can really dig into the debate. it will be a short but spicy talk and i think we should let him do it. vivek ramaswamy is an american business leader, new york times

best-selling author and 2024 republican presidential candidate born and raised in cincinnati, ohio after which he attended harvard for college, where he was known for it and a libertarian rapper. he cast his first vote for president in 2004 for the libertarian nominee, michael bednarik, a fact that he was criticized heavily for doing the republican primary. he often quoted hayek and mises on the campaign trail and his signature issue with shutting down the revelatory state. [applause] he has founded multiple companies and is an unapologetic defender of capitalism. he sundered a financial services firm that is amazing, and my phone just died. [applause] without further ado, let's welcome vivek ramaswamy to the stage. [cheers and applause]

vivek: love you guys. thank you for having me. good to be here. i have to tell you, that libertarian rapper career, my stage name used to be-da vek. i took the next logical step up to being a successful referent which is become an analyst at a biotech-focused hedge fund where i worked for seven years. short-lived career, but it was good. i am probably unique amongst candidates who have run for the republican nomination for u.s. president, in that i have voted as many times for us libertarian u.s. president as a halfway republican. [applause] look, i will be -- let me take this off, i would like to hold this mic. it's a very formal podium for a libertarian conference here. [laughter] things have changed around here. the truth is, i have been skeptical of both major political parties for a long time.

republican party, democratic party. i am skeptical of third parties -- -- i will get to that in a second, as well. i am skeptical about the democratic party. the reasons are obvious, the conventional wisdom is that if the socialist party. i don't think so, i think it's increasingly leaning in the marxist direction. teaching people that your identity is based on your race, gender, your sexuality. . the attributes you can have it day that you are born. writing the tectonic plates of group identity and an invisible power relationship with every other human being, and that we have to correct for those power relationships in the name of equity. a party that in the name of diversity has sacrificed the true diversity of thought. a party that in the name of equity has sacrificed true equality of opportunity. a party that in the name of inclusion has created a culture of exclusion where certain ports of you just aren't welcome. now weaponizing the justice system to go after their

political openness, it's not in any sense a democratic party that stands for democratic principles. it's increasingly a tyrannical vehicle for advancing marxist policies in the united states, so, yes, i am skeptical of the democratic party. but i will take that -- that sounds good. [applause] it's important to call out everybody here. "truth is treason in their empire of lies," that is the modern democratic party. [cheers and applause] and truth is treason today, but we will speak the truth and, the treason of truth here in washington, d.c.. i have also been a longtime skeptic of the establishment wing of the republican party. think about the party that led us into war in iraq in 2004. it wasn't really the democrats. it was the republicans in the wake of 9/11. i was against it at the time as i am today. look at the party that not only

gave us the crony capitalist conditions for the 2008 financial crisis -- people miss this -- it wasn't greed that caused the crisis, it was government-ordained policy that created the financial crisis from the actions of the u.s. federal reserve. [applause] to raining money from on high. that is what give us the 2008 financial crisis. my story, my parents came to this country 40 years ago with no money. when i graduated from college, i didn't make any bones or apologize for it, i didn't focus on anything else rather than winning through free-market capitalism so i joined a hedge fund in 2008 -- back here to get a job in new york city, turns out. [laughter] but we saw what happened even worse than the lead up to that financial crisis, it was actually bailouts using our own taxpayer money to bail out financial institutions that made well for themselves when times were good, but expect of the

taxpayer to bail them out when times weren't bad. it was in the democratic party who did it, it was the same party that led us into the iraq war, the same party that supported many of the policies that give us the crisis including the federal reserve policy in the first place, that build out the same financial institutions. so i am skeptical of the long-standing tradition in the republican party to engage in crony capitalism, as well. [applause] and we will come back to this because i worry that that ghost of dick cheney is trying to resuscitate itself in certain core doors the modern republican party. i am skeptical of the democratic party, skeptical of the historical establishment wing of the republican party. i know you've all heard from rfk jr. earlier today and i will just be calling it out as like i see it. 360 degrees here. i respect his commitment to miracle freedom -- medical freedom from that i will acknowledge that, got to respect somebody who stands for actual medical freedom.

but rfk jr. is in no sense a libertarian in any meaningful sense of the word. the fact is that you can't say you support free speech in this country if you also have given in the past, advocated for imprisoning those who have spread climate disinformation. the second amendment is not a recommendation. it's a right. and i will call it like it is, i am proud to be not only the only republican candidate who came to the festival this year, but also to be the only presidential candidate of any party that didn't require people to disabuse themselves of their second amendment rights order to enter those grounds either. i don't think you are a libertarian if you behave like the other side. i am glad he is typical of the government narrative on vaccine but he is imbibing on the narrative on them a chance. i am glad he supports actual medical independence, but the fact is somebody cannot oppose nuclear energy in this country and support expansion of the

regulatory state on the grounds of environmentalism or consumer detection and in any way pose as it libertarian. [applause] so i don't bend the knee to one particular party or another, democrat,. republican party i respect some elements of what everybody has to say in respecting freedom. but rfk is in no sense a libertarian either. i would call out not everybody else in this room, but ask a hard question to this room, because i think the republican party -- i have said this -- is at a crossroads. they will not come to this room -- the republican party is at a crossroads. right now it's a choice, a fork in the road in the conservative movement between resuscitating the ghost of dick cheney, reviving a post-9/11 surveillance state backed by the patriot act permits today, what is it? the expansion, not the renewal of fisa 702.

. that is what republicans are rooting for by large numbers today. the same party that took us into the iraq war is forking over more of your own taxpayer dollars to ukraine. so one fork in the road is to go the way of dick cheney in the past. the other part is now emerging as a fork in the road is to go in favor of what they would call industrial policy, but what increasingly looks and smells like a right-wing version of the nanny state. and i don't support that either. the right answer there is none of the above. what is the right answer? it has to do with the people in this room. [applause] that's the right answer. it's a false choice between the new crony capitalism, the left-wing nanny state. i say no to that from that i say no to the neoconservative vision of yesterday permitted by the right path forward -- that is why i am here today -- actually has to do with those of you in this room because you, too, face

a fork in the road from the fear is a hard question for this party to ask itself, which is, "what is your goal in 2024. why are we here? is it to seek out another best-case scenario?" is it to get 3% as they stretch goal which would be a great outcome of the libertarian party compared to 1% of the last time around? is that the goal, to call it a victory and move on? or is it to actually take the freedom-centric ideals that those of us in this room share deeply in common, and to actually translate that into action by working and influencing and having a seat at the front of the table of the next administration? that is a question for you to ask yourself.

i am not telling you what the answer is. but the question is, -- you don't owe me an answer. nobody owes me an answer. [laughter] i am against and i am glad to be here, but the question is, do you want to get 3% or shoot for that of the special, or do you actually want to change this country and working -- by working together. i speak to you as a libertarian at my core. i have gotten to know trump over the course of the last several years and seven months, and you will hear from him tomorrow night. [crowd booing] the question is do you want to influence the next administration or don't you? that is the question for this room. and my thesis for you that you get to speak your mind, i respect that. but the question is, how do you get it done? i believe the future of this country depends on a libertarian nationalist alliance that will save this country. [crowd booing]

that is what i believe is required. send my challenge to you is, how do we work together to actually was for free speech? so you got to speak your mind as long as i get to in return? how do we actually restore religious liberty so you are free to worship if you wish to worship, how you want in this country? how do we work together to restore the actual second amendment not as a recommendation, but as a right? how do we put an end to a central bank digital currency once and for all in the united states? how do we end the federal reserve's field policies and bring competition through the dollar in the united states of america? i love it. [chanting] how do we shutdown the three letter agencies that populate these infested cities in washington, d.c.? we are not just reforming it for you cannot reform that beast.

if you want to get serious? get in there and shut it down. shutdown the svi. shut down the ats. shut down the cdc -- shut down the svi, the ats, the cdc, the department of education permit fire 80% of the federal bureaucrats in washington, d.c. and send them home packing because they should've never had the job in the first place. rescind every cause additional federal regulation of the congress never passed --the sec, f.t.c., tsa. shut it down. so the question is how do we work together to make possible in this country what we haven't yet achieved? how do we revive who we are, the constitution of 1789, the revolution of 1776? i am tired of standing around here complaining about it, but i wish to translate this vision into action. that is what our founding

fathers did 250 years ago. . you don't get this without making a sacrifice. it's easy to tap yourself on the back and say you say the right things. but if you want to translate it into action, this is our moment. you want to end up in foreign wars and foreign aid to countries the don't advance the u.s. taxpayers' interests? exit the you andstop funding the w.h.o. this is within reach. this is not new for tonight, it's what i have been saying for the last year across the campaign trail, how do we translate vision to reality? are we people of words, or are we people of action? that is the question before us right now. who is going to get it done? that is a question for you to ask yourself. you don't owe me the answer to the question, you owe yourselves to this country an answer. two corporate principles going forward in this country, the

people we elect to run the government should be the one to actually run the government. not the shadow government in washington, d.c. and the sole moral duty that those leaders go, the only moral duty of the u.s. elected leader is to a u.s. citizen here at home, not halfway around the world, right here at home in our country. it's not too much to ask. it's not a black idea or a weight idea or democrat idea or republican idea. these are american ideals that we secured in 1776. i think we live in a 1776 moment right now. i have come here today to tell you from one form or libertarian reference to an audience of libertarians with us today, from a lettuce move from words to action. it lets us actually take the policies that you and i care about and turn them into reality and have a front seat to

actually get it done. i believe many people in this room should be advising, if not directly involved in the next administration of the united states of america. that is why i am here today. [applause] [applause] so do what is right for america. fight for our constitution. make george washington proud. make mises and hayek proud. make america great again. thank you guys. god bless you and your party and may god bless our united states of america. let's actually get the job done. thank you guys. appreciate it. [applause] vivek: thank you. [indistinct shouting] vivek: you said it. who said that? [free ross] vivek: free ross.

pardon assange. ed snowden deserve to come home from it that much we agree on. [crowd cheering] i set it on the campaign, if we have anything to do with it, like gabriel, julian's brother, that men should not be in a foreign prison. it does what it means to. be free and by the way, every peaceful january 6 protester deserves a part on along with protesters on day one of this country. that is what it means to stand for one standard of the rule of law in america. could leave that out. thank you for that. -- could not leave that out. thank you for that. chair mcardle: alright,. we will jump into a moderated debate. i am going to pass this off to dave smith. dave: hey! how is everybody doing? are we having some fun?

[laughter] i think that was pretty cool. alright, we will start this up here. angela, how long are we supposed to go for? we will figure it out, someone will tell me when i am getting kicked off food full disclosure as i host they can moderate this thing. i love both of these guys, i think it is so cool that vivek ramaswamy came to talk to us. [applause] david: this is something where the party has never had before where national figures are coming to address our concerns. and i am very happy that my boy, clint russell, won the vp not to be up here. clint: thank you, guys. david: broadly speaking, i think the topic for this was how to dismantle the deep state", or something like that. one of my favorite things about you, vivek, my favorite thing about you and what your campaign

and your voice has kind of been directing is this kind of -- i think one of the things missing from the populist-trumpist movement in this country is a direct focus on a reduction in the size and power and secrecy of government. [applause] and it's one thing to say in the abstract, we will drain the swamp, but if spending is going up, and the spy agencies have their secrecy, the swamp, by definition, is not drained from can you speak to that a bit? vivek: this is part of the fork in the road for the republican party i was talking about. well-intentioned republicans believe you have to perform this administrative state. buyer christopher wray, you will hear, and they will wait for applause afterwards from that it doesn't work, because if you cut off the head of a 100-headed

hydra, another one will grow. the only correct answer is to shut it down and start from scratch and don't rebuild the same cancer you created in the first place. it's practical. a good thing about the laws, politicians should actually try reading it. turns out the president -- there are a service protection rules which i am against, which they i can't fire you because i disagree with your view on abortion or whatever from the define. say what you will. those rules don't apply to the mass layoffs are what we need to bring to the d.c. bureaucracy, what you musk did to twitter. we need to bring it on steroids to d.c. the other step of this we don't talk about it enough, any kind of government officials has pressured private sector actors to do something a government official couldn't do directly, we have got to disclose that for the college that twitter files in the case of one company?

i call it the state action files. any time a government sector has done something through the front door that they couldn't do the back door, we in the public have to see it and that combination of transparency and be willing to shut down and mass fire a large number of people is what it will take because no amount of reform can actually get the job done. david: no disagreement actually. fmr. pres. clinton: i will just add that what i find consuming, it was james comey and crossfire hurricane that was responsible on ultimately spying on and attempting to coup donald trump. there is this rhetoric about we need to shut it down and start from noon, but it implies that the institution itself isn't the fatally flawed is. do we need to federal police force, which is essentially what the fbi -- do we need a central intelligence agency which goes around toppling dictators and fomenting coups?

david: they topple a elected governments too. in fairness. [laughter] [applause] clint: that is probably the biggest divide from our conversations in the past. seems to me that america got off the path it was supposed to be on sometime around the foundation of the central bank and the sba. -- and the sbi. david: woodrow wilson. clint: yes, the progressive era from why can't we shut down and rebuild, but rather, it just shut down, abolished, and be done with it? [applause] vivek: let's start with step one, we have the long-run future and then we have the next months. i think the moment we live in right now, we cannot let this one slipped our hands. within eight months. within nine months, i believe we will be in a position to turn this into reality. if you have to take one or two

risks. because you can say i will cut exactly the amount i need to. none of us is god. there are two risks people take. one risk is you will not cut enough. he will cut back but you will not cut enough. at least you are not cutting muscles. the other risk is cutting so much that i will list actually cutting some muscle. that is a risk we have to take the good that is the next step. then if we discover that we cut some muscle and we find out there was some part where that was really necessary, i am open to taking the risk to say we learned that the, hard way and then rebuild what we are missing. maybe we'll need that step, maybe you want to. i suspect in 99% of the cases we will discover we didn't. i think that is the way we want to bring a little javier to the united states of america. on steroids.

mucho milei. [applause] i loved meeting that guy earlier this year. he is an animal. would be a good advisor to the next administration, i think. david: when you met him, i remember you said he is a big mises guy and you are more of a hayek guy. vivek: i said that before hand and then when he actually said ragbar. david: ok. i can only get so erect. [laughter] [applause] this is a bit off topic. since this milei thing came up, you said you are more of a hayek guy. if you haven't read mises, how can he prefer hayek? vivek: mises is in the modern sense of the world what you would call it based.

everybody here has something that drew them in the first time. for me it was at the age of 19 reading the constitutional liberty. i had read it before and i was underwhelmed. i don't know how you feel, but that book is brilliant. but he made a case that didn't tap into the moral case for actually being a libertarian. and i think hayek did that in a beautiful way, he made a moral case for capitalism that not only was it the right system, it was the only justice system. the constitutional liberty, the part that stood out to me the most, let me bring it back to michael in the late 18 years, he said, you don't actually respect your fellow human. if you condescend upon them so much to say that their phone work is tied to their financial worth. the whole premise for the redistributionist project was

that your own financial worth is tied to your moral worth. that means you aren't morally so wordy that you deserve distribution. it causes you to say that therefore because you are less, you are worth less, which is how we operate in the capitalist system. if you are degrading the people you supposedly health. so that drew me in in a way that could speak to a 19-year-old, in a hayek guy even though i can acknowledge that mises may be more based. david: 's fair enough. it is fair that the guy who brought you into this has a special part -- because to this day, i would take a bullet for ron paul. he was the guy who introduced me to this stuff. [applause] clint: he will be here sunday. you will have your chance. [laughter] david: he would have to be more than be here. also -- anyway. i don't actually want to. clint: can i ask a follow up?

i like a lot of what you have to say and i genuinely think the 75% across-the-board federal headcount cuts, it's a massive step in the direction of saving this country and i genuinely mean that. what i don't understand is donald trump and your support of donald trump in this regard. he -- this is my genuine belief, the fbi actively worked to undermine a sitting president. i think it also arguably our responsible for assassination of civil-rights leaders and presidents and other political leaders. why in god's name, is donald trump talking about building a new building for the fbi in washington, d.c.? [cheering] vivek: so, it looks. i am vivek ramaswamy. clint: i know. david: the guy loves buildings.

[laughter] vivek: i will say a few things about this. tomorrow night, right? will you agree with him on 100% of what he says? do i agree with 100% of his policy decisions? no. who is going to be the president? i think donald trump is unambiguously -- i mean, come on, it looks. i invite you to dream on, aerosmith. [laughter] david: guys. i get you booing about stuff you don't agree with, but he is kind of right about that. [laughter] this prediction is that it will be a democrat or republican. i mean, is a safe bet. vivek: let me lift the curtain a bit. this is not me blowing smoke, it's fact.

i have had extensive conversations with donald trump about libertarian objectives. one that is going to be flat out, at least publicly evident. we spoke backstage in new hampshire after i dropped out of the race about a position of central bank digital currency. i have talked to others about this. the cbdc, or whatever you will hear from other candidates. i am giving you what you will get from others. david: david: i am autistic and i am a libertarian. [laughter] vivek: what you will get from other politicians, yeah, the c-d-b-c. donald trump didn't know it was. i told him what it is. he said, what is the reason they want it? i believe if you don't have a good argument for the other side, you don't actually believe. three nights later he is in new hampshire and i am backstage listening. he goes on stage and says, i am

here to announce that i am approach to the creation of digital bank currency. . he has stuck to that ever since. [applause] here is what i will say. i think the republican party and its leadership in the next president of the united states will a better version of the south because of the existence of the people in this room. now i want that influence to be as great as it possibly can be. and then there is a technical question, is that going to be by getting x percent? or by some other means of actually making sure that we don't just talk about, but shutdown agencies? actually gets in there and flatten out as much of the government as a cam so we can have as little of the tax code as possible so everybody can achieve what they want in this country for smokes and invent the conflicts marching as to world war iii? how do we turn that into reality? i believe in this

election cycle, unambiguously, the best chance is making sure of two things. one is, not only that donald trump is president of the united states. but those of you in this room have an opportunity to shape the way we actually run this country. i spoke to him in the last couple of days. he says, we want to work together with the libertarians. i take him at his word, you have my word, that we are going to make sure the policy you care about in this room are transmitted into action in the next administration. that is what i can tell you. [scattered applause] david: that was a friendly comment. friendly comment delivered in the most aggressive way i have ever seen. [laughter] david: you should be [expletive] vice president, man! [laughter] i have never been threatened before. that is fair. let me ask this question and i will ask this to you, clint. there is definitely a point here

that vivek is bringing up that whether we like it or not, this situation which is kind of a unit party two wings, and it will be a democrat or republican who is the next president -- do you think that given the fact donald trump was president for four years, do you think we have seen much to indicate that the people in this room will be shaping his policy in any meaningful way? clint: this will not make me any friends in the gop but i will tell you the truth. i am very concerned about some of the maneuvers i have seen and some of the rumors, particularly when it comes to the forward aid package passed just last month -- foreign aid package. you have lindsey graham, a handful of boris johnson -- god knows how that idiot would note -- he said donald trump was ultimately responsible for green lighting $100 billion going to

proxy wars against nuclear powers. that is not america first. that does not make america great again. that is neoconservatism. that is nikki haley. that is the person that you ended their political career. tell me why trump is better, because i can't see it. [cheering] [laughter] vivek: i got what was supposed to be a gotcha question yesterday which is, how would you have waited on the aid package? would you have voted no? that is what i can tell you, i would have voted no. i don't think that advances the best interests of the united states. do i think tiktok is a good platform for youth? i don't. it's disgusting. do i think the government should

be in the business of banning individual companies? no. i would have voted no straight on the line and i disagree with my republican colleagues who voted yes. david: absolutely. that is a great answer. can i ask you to follow up on that, why do you think there was this push to ben tiktoks? is it really because as they say, it's partially owned by a chinese subsidiary, or is it because of, say, a different foreign nation? vivek: you are talking about a foreign nation beginning in slicken mammy? facebook live unit is the reason we passed that bill. that is what i believe. they are literally taking the same videos from tiktok and putting it on reel. who do you think is benefiting from that? who lobbied for this the first time around? i have no patience for people in washington, d.c. who now suddenly discovered a concern

for china? didn't think about chinese transformers in our electric goods. suddenly tiktok is the issue. here is the way i look at passing laws. i can respect it if you are applying the same rules of the road. but if there is some behavior you don't want, that have a debate about banning that behavior. but the idea of putting a strain on a particular company is a dangerous precedent. take the example of, how in the case of social media company that a lot of kids are using influencing what users see to prop up the ccp? yes, we have. i'll tell you exactly how. have we seen an instance of a social media account being shot down if you claim that the covid-19 virus originated in a lab in china? we have seen that at a large scale. were your own posts and start if you said it? was your account censored if you

said it? it was. was there a state actor or suffered after behind-the-scenes fuel is getting those companies to do it? yes, there was. that government was the united states of america. you know the companies who were doing it? youtube, facebook, instagram, you name it. twitter before fillon acquired it. i think this whole thing is a farce. a smokescreen. do i think tiktoks is a good influence on young people? no, but it is separate from asking whether he will pass a bill banning the existence of a particular company. it's unprincipled and unconstitutional and that is what i am against it. you can say something is bad for someone flow saying it's not the government's job in the business of banning it! [applause] david: couldn't agree with that more. do you think, clint, if there were to be -- i think a lot of

people in this room probably agree -- the reaction obviously has been there have been things that you have been on your feet cheering for things vivek is saying, a few things you had mixed reaction to, a few things that drew some boos. for the people in this room, what is the thing that you just can't get over the hump to say ok to i can swallow this bill that we might agree on some issues with donald trump, all the right people hate him? clint: it's interesting. i was thinking about that before we came out here. it was a tagline in your speech about turning words into action. the issue has been that the gop, throughout my entire life, has not turned words into action. [cheers and applause] they haven't. they have promised to defend,

they have promised to defend the constitution. when? i will die before they do it. this is my deep-seated concern. they talk about limited government. they talk about ending wars. bringing troops home. when? it's not happening. so the reason the libertarian party, as viable as it is, the reason trump and yourself and even rfk are here this weekend, is because the election margins are so thin that you guys need us. and i appreciate you are willing to come talk to us, there is no animus particularly between you and i, but there is a tremendous amount of animosity between myself and the gop who has run around talking as if they are ron paul and then governing as if they are john mccain. [cheers and applause] [cheering] david: that is a first. thank you.

vivek: and if you watch the gop debates, you would know we agree. clint: yes. david: to be fair, it's almost like, look, it's not so much that clint is arguing with you. this is the stuff vivek was talking about in those debates, but he is arguing about your support for donald trump, i think. clint: and the gop broadly, when do we actually expect the outcome? we are $35 trillion in debt. over $1 trillion in interest alone. i mean, that will be the largest expenditure for the u.s. government the largest government in the history of the world will spend more on interest than our national defense permits sorry, but it's just not a listenable trajectory. and i know you know that. vivek: and by the way, $7 trillion comes from two wars in iraq and afghanistan. that the republican party was responsible for leading us into. say this about donald trump, he was the single person who back

in 2016, will put in iraq war, was toxic in the republican party. so you are asking for pieces of evidence, and it's easy. it is easy to come into a room, and i have been in these rooms too. clint: it's a hot room. vivek: to go to people who agree with you is great from it go to the party and say this was all wrong, and then to convert the majority in that room, that is what takes real courage. i would sooner go to ever make this with the democratic party or you of then, speak to people who already agree with me, because then we are not getting something out of this. in many ways, that is what donald trump did to the republican party and 2016. the only person who opposed the war in iraq rand paul, got to respect -- in terms of people who got double digit actually in the late stages of the primary,

to me somehow how do you take that to the next level? what does america first to .0 look like? and this is not the argument, it's for opportunity. one thing i will tell you is i am not a gop politician, i am a businessman who chose to run for president in the last year. if you watched the gop primary debates, you will know i was not a favorite child of that party's experiment, ok? but i am here because i care about the country. the future direction of not only the republican party, but even the america first movement, is actually yet to be defined. right? the america first movement is one wing of the republican party. not the majority. that stands in opposition to the neocon view of yesterday. what is that? surveillance state, expanded, keep the war machine and the money printing machine running, you have the american first movement -- america first

movement. the future of america first is still being defined as we speak. i want you all to understand, this is a major opportunity. i believe it's my responsibility to play a role in shaping this father better rather than the worse. i don't believe in recreating a mirror image of the left-wing nanny state in the form of a right-wing nanny state and calling it industrial policy because it sounds better. i believe the future is combining that strand of the america movement that speaks to me -- national pride, pride in who we are, restoring purpose for people who lack it and say we pledge allegiance to the united states of america because of what it represents. because there are certain ideals enshrined in our declaration of independence and our constitution. to combine that with the policy vision that 98% of us agree on in this room here. that is the opportunity in front

of us. i think if we go in the direction of just saying this is a separate view and we view that as oppositional, you will not have the influence of shaping it. it will be an opportunity to shape the future direction of this country by joining, fusing those libertarian and positive national pride-oriented nationalist instincts that actually makes our country itself. i am here to make sure we don't squander that window because it will not present itself again. this is our chance to actually get that right and that is what our founding fathers stood for and what i stand for today. david: i think the disconnect here -- and look, i know i am moderating this, but everybody knows my bias. clint: you have opinions, david? [laughter] david: occasionally. i then disconnect here is i highly doubt that anyone what kind of agree with your point that donald trump opposing the war in iraq on that stage in

south carolina and telling jeb bush, that it was an amazing woman. that his america first rhetoric is substantially preferable to neocon rhetoric about budding democracy. but the issue is, you kind of have these four years where he clearly got rolled by his deep state" at almost every single turn. and just the other day, he is bragging about how aid to ukraine is a loan, not a gift, healthy influence that permitted by the way, it's a loan with 0% interest and no enforcement mechanism of them paying it back. [laughter] it seems to me like he is giving us indications that while some of the people being floated around, aye heard rue mofers marco rubio being considered for v.p. [audience boos]

david: we're not big fans of rubio here. i've heard of other people, like yourself, but the question is has he learned anything, is there any indication he's learned how to maneuver once in pow her i have vek: i'll give -- ders once in power? vivek: i'll give you a promise on this, we talk about individual people who are less valuable, but you asked a question, i'm going to answer it. here's my view. i ran for president for the first time this time around and i learned this. a lot of things i did not know before i entered this game. there are a million things i would do differently in my own campaign. not ideological policy things, a few things maybe, but just run, the sport of politics. a million things you learn if us were advising somebody to do it again, or i was, god

forbid, doing it again, you'll understand what you didn't the first thing. i know for a fact that donald trump would say the same thing, coming in from the outside, not knowing anything about politic, coming from the world of business, thinking am i going to run for a second term if i did everything right the first time? there's no reason to run again. we have an opportunity to shape for the better the future direction of the america first movement. do we want to seize it or not? i believe we do. that's why i'm doing every bit of what i am doing. that's why we have official opposition in the republican party platform from the top down to opposition of a central bank digital currency, back door censorship for companies in ways we did not several years ago. i think this is the direction of the future. take that positive national pride strand of the america first movement, combine it with the libertarian core of the constitution, the libertarian

bones on which the constitution was written with three branches of government, not four, and a bill of rights that has, say what you will about it, the best guarantor of protecting human rights of any other nation in history combine those two thing, that's our future if anybody is perfect, is anybody in this room perfect? anybody in this room god? raise your hand if you're god? a couple of them back there. you'll have to duke it out. for the rest of us, none of us is god. but the beauty of this country is we're not perfect but we aspire to perfection. the left makes this mistake. they do the same thing. thomas jefferson was a slaveholder, therefore the country was started in 1619 and we abandon it because the constitution was run by slave holders. i would rather live in kawntry that has ideals and people who fall short of them than live in kraint that dunn have any ideals

at all. that's twhea united states is funned on. the pursuit of perfection. don't turn turn your back on that. help us pursue perfection. that's my ask for you. i would say let's go back and talk about policies. david: absolutely. in terms of policies i think here's one area where we might differ a bit. one of the thingus ran on was kind of a crackdown of trade relations with china. vivek: crackdown of our economic dependence for vital attributes of our life for china. david: fair enough. clint what do you think about the idea of that? clint: well i'll just ask a followup before i jump through the tv screen, how do you decidh this from a libertarian, free market perspective, but also have the president who is running on, i'm going to dictate

what materials, what supplies are vital to this nation and therefore sanction or tariff or whatever to diminish the supply coming out of china? i don't understand. vivek: this is a great quesm i'll give an analogy from the trojan war. the greeks never would have won the to rian war by tearing down the weustles troy. so they gave the gift of the trojan horse which they used to bring the city down from within. i think in many ways china has done this by viewing capitalism, not real capitalism but a perverted form of it, as the trojan horse they've used to burn us down from within. i'll explain what i mean. sit capitalism if one end of that party, so let's say china, says that the united states,

apologies to blackrocker i'll give a real world example, blackrock manages u.s. government dollars that require them, they're required as a condition of managing the money, to say that companies like exxon and chevron cannot actually maximally burn fossil fuels in the united states. they have to adopt scope three mission caps. yet that same company, exact same company, as a condition for entering business in china, had to lobby for lower lifting standards for chinese companies in the united states and is actually one of the largest shareholders of petrochina, to whom they don't apply the same mission caps. that's not capitalism. that's a crony capitalism in reverse. that's state-directed capitalism. that is mercantilism. so we cannot delude ourselves in just reciting the same slogan the neocon wing of the republican party did four years

ago. that's not capitalism. that's us pretending we're indulging in capitalism when we're trading with a marcan tilist actor. my view is, can we depend on that same country for our own defense industrial base? doesn't make any sense. maybe we don't need a defense industrial base. that could be a coherent view, you're allowed to have that view. for those who agree there's a minimal defense industrial base the u.s. requires, it's incoherent for the u.s. to depend on that counterparty for providing the same industrial base that is supposedly defending against the threat. doesn't make any sense. that's my position. takes into the reality of what we're facing in this unique circumstance without throwing the baby out with the bathwaterrer saying we give up on trade in the first place and give up on trade as ay to reflect the vision for the people actually playing by the same rules of capitalism. clint: i fleesht clarification. it does answer a lot.

i view all trade wars, marcan tile. i. i view all of it as band-aids on bullet wounds. i do. i see it as ultimately the reason that our industrial base has been outsourced to china is because we closed the window. it's really a large product of 1913, the federal reserve act, closing the gold window in 1971. you look at the industrial base it evaporates over the following 50 years. i don't think that's a coincidence. we're still producing a lot of paper money. but that's really what we are dealing with right now. while we import a lot of actual goods that are being produced by china and we ought to be appreciative because we couldn't afford to buy them if they're being made in america, what our main export is is paper, green paper. that's what we export. that's not a foundation that's sustainable either. i think tariffs or any sort of -- these are all pinpoint targets on what is ultimately a

wound that's fatal. we have to end the federal reserve if we're going to resolve that. [cheers and applause] david: ron paul will be here sunday night. vivek: i'll say two things. we're not going to beat china by being china. the main argument for the united states is if china is doing it. why is china doing it? they're doing it because they want to wipe your bank account clean if you say something the government doesn't agree with keeping up with the joneses is not an answer for doing something here in the united states. you know what country banned tiktok before the united states did? china. we're not going to beat china,

by being china. on mop tear policy i don't think you'll find daylight between us. our dhar should be pegged to commodities that have real values to tie the hands of the federal government. that's a hard answer. but china -- i think that that is a necessary but not sufficient answer to the question. because i think china has understood that the game from trade model only works if you have a commercial actor on the other side. if somebody else is guided by noncommercial goals, engaging in a system designed for actual engaging in mutual commerce, they're able to advance political goals through a verdictor that would exclusively designed for trade. i think that's the trap we've fallen into. and you know what i want to avoid? i don't want foreign wars, i don't want foreign wars on this side of the world either. but we have to say if you're not playing by the same set of rules, open up trade

relationsships with japan, south korea and other countries where we've restricted it. if you want economic independence from china, producing in the united states is good but you have to be open to every other mechanism to do it too. that's where we might find common ground. david: very good. let's talk a little bit, because the broad topic of this was about the deep state. we're covering a lot of things. but i will say that here's an area where i think there's some daylight between the two of you. i hear you talk a lot about the f.b.i. and c.i.a., n.s.a. another three-letter organization which is just as bad is the d.e.a. [cheers and applause] i know you've take on a very aggressive posture toward drug cartels in mexico. even at one point talking about a drone campaign against them. why don't -- why don't you just support calling off the stupid disastrous war on drugs? just get the stuff out of the

black market? [applause] vivek: i'm at the libertarian party convention, someone defending some form of drug regulation. here's what i'll say is, i favor medical choice. so let's start with common ground and then i'll go to where we differ. decriminal size -- there's one candidate who wants to decriminalize marijuana, high waws ka -- huayasca and psilocybin for medical use. just because the f.d.a. approved something doesn't mean that you should ever be mandated to take it.

so that one. but just because the f.d.a. has not approved something, does not mean that you shouldn't be able to take it. you deserve to have medical choice. i stand for the absolute actual right to try. it's a part of what we're seeing here is, this is actually administrative blackballs where we have a right to try law. the right to try law was passed under donald trump's tenuring he passed, he pushed firt. but the f.d.a. blackballed it. if you're a company that avails yourself of right to try so you say i'm going to make my therapy available for anybody who wants to try it, even though the law permits you to do that, the f.d.a. will penalize you and blackball you on any other application you bring before them. that's why no company does it. so i'm focused on what i think is the next frontier of dealing with stupid drug regulation in this country which is ensuring medical choice for medical

purpose. i think let's cross that bridge first is where i'm at before we have a further discussion. on the issue of fentanyl which is where i was most hawkish. i don't think it is a drug everdose if somebody takes something that they don't know contains a substance and and the dies from it. i have met parents across this country, this is not a joking matter or anything else -- legalize what exactly? i'm talking about -- i'm focusing on fentanyl. when somebody is taking a pill they may have purchased illegally but the kid takes it and they die not knowing it was fentanyl. that's not what they signed up. that's happening intentionally as well. my focus is on addressing that crisis. do we agree on this issue in of course not. if i'm -- am i going to be the republican most likely to bring the other half of medical choice to bear? i believe that that is as far as we're going to get. david: it's fair enough.

i think the point people are making as they kind of heckle here is that the whole point is that, you're 100% right. that person was poisoned. they didn't o.d. on drugs. the point is you will exclusively find this in the black market. you're not going to hospitals. there's not an issue of people going to hospitals and getting a pain pill and o.d. eeg from fentanyl because it's tested and weighed out. vivek: this is just an area where, it's going to be part of the 2% window where when we look at what part of medical choice do we agree on, if you deserve to take a substance for medical purposes that isn't approved by the f.d.a., i think you deserve the right to try it. i think that's a net good especially when you're dealing with, and this is where the rubber hits the road. i'm a libertarian for adults. kids aren't the same as adults. >> agreed.

vivek: i think that's also where i draw a big line of impact that. informs a lot of stances i've adopted. david: i do agree with that. kids, if my kids are listen, you have zero rights. guys, i've been given the sign to wrap up. i enjoyed this so much. thank you, clint, vivek. give it up for vivek, he didn't have to do this. vivek: thank you guys for welcoming me. thank you for keeping an open mind. you've had an impact on me. give a round of applause to clint and our great moderator david as well. thank you, guys. appreciate the warm welcome as well. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> we'll have more kverage from th libertarian cveion saturday when presumptive republican nominee donald trump will speak to delegates. watch it live on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span's "washington journal," our live forum involving you, to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy. from washington and across the country. coming up saturday morning. we'll talk about campaign 2024 and this weekend's libertarian national convention with "the washington post's" merle kornfield. then, u.s. marine corps veteran travis partington discusses his podcast "oscar mike radio" that focuses on active duty military. join us live, 7:00 eastern on

saturday morning on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. on saturday, president biden will be in new york toive the commencement address to the u.s. military academy at west point. it'll be his third commencement address at the academy but his first as commander in chief. watch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. taking you to where the policies are debated and decided all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by