)schair 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. myvivek 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 wattended 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]tiple companies and is an unapologetic defender of capitalism. es 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 my stage name used to be-da vei took the next logical step up which is become an analyst at a

ved 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 time libertarian u.s. president as a halfway republican. [applause] look, -- 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 aroundere. the truth is, i have been skeptical of both major political parties for a l time. republican party, democratic party. i am skeptical of third parties -- -- i will get to that in a 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, eships 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 namef opportunity. a party t 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 democrati it's increasingly a tyrannical vehicle for in the united states, so yes, i am skeptical of the democratic party. but i will take that -- that sounds good. [appuse] 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 ira't really the democrats. it was the republicans in the wake o11i was against it at the time as i am today. look at the party that not only gave us the crony capittalis 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 winninghrough free-market capitalism so i joined a hedge fund in 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 tbail 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 ofs that give us the crisis including the federal reserve policy inbuild out the same financial institutions. so i am the long-standing tradition in the republican party to engage in crony capitalism, as well. pplause] and we will come back to this because i worry that that ghost of dick cheney is trying to resuscitat itself in certain core doors the modern republican party. i am skeptical of the democratic party, skeptical of the historical estabblican party. i know you've all heard from rfk jr. earlie today and i will just be calling it out as like i 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 actu medical freedom. but rfk jr. is in no sense a libertarian in any meaningful sense of the word. the fact is that you can' say you support free speech in this country if you also have given advocated for imprisoning thoste 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 totheir second amendment rights order to enter those grounds either. i don't thk yoe libertarian if you behave like the ot is typical of the government narrative on vaccine but he is imbibi on the narrative on them a chance. i am glad he supports actual medicalndependence, but the fact is somebody cannot oppose

nuclear energy in this country and support expansion of the state on the grounds of environmentalism or consumer detection and in any way pose as it libertarian. [applause] so i the knee to one particular party or another democrat,. republican party iese elements of what everybody has to say in respecting freedom. but rf is in no sense a libertarian either. i would in this room, but ask a hard question to this room, y -- i have said this -- i -- 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 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 tt took us into the iraq war is forking over more of your own taxpayer dollars to 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 tt 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 cap capitalism, the left-wing nanny state. that from that i say no to the neoconservative vision by the right path forward -- that is why i am here t 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 ito seek out another best-case scenario?" 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 havi the front of the table of the next administration? that is a question for you to ask yourself. i am not 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 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. [crowdthat is what i believe my challenge to you is, how do we work together to actually so you got to speak your mind as long as i get tohow do we actually restore religious liberty so you are free to worship if you wish to worship, how you want in this country? we work together to

restore the actual second amendment not as, but as a right? how do we put an end to a central bank digital currency once and for all in the unitede 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 tletter agencies that populate these infested cities in just reforming it for you cannot reform 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 theme they should've never had the job in the first place. ind every cause additional federal regulation of the congress never passed --the sec,

f.t.c.. shut it down. so the question is how do we work together to make possibleachieved? 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 wish to translate this vision into action. that is what our founding 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 tra into action, this is our moment. you want to end up in foreign wars and foreign aid to countriesdvance the u.s. taxpayers' interests? exit the you andstop funding the w.h.o. each. 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 arof action?

that is the question beforeo get it done? that is a question for you to ask yourself. me the answer to the question, you owe yourselves to this cotwo 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 leader is to a u.s. citizen here at home, not 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 ia.therican ideals that we secured in 1776. i think we live in a 1776 moment right now. i have come here today you from one form or libertarian reference to an audience of bertarians 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 stateswhy i am here today. [applause] [applause] do eorge washington proud. make mises and hayek proud. make america great again. thank you g 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] 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 thateei set it on the campaign if we 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 da smith.dave: hey! how is

[laughter] i cool. alright, we will start this up here. r? we will figure it out, someone will tell me when i am getting kicked off food full disclosure host they can moderate this thing. i love both of these guys, i think it is so coo 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 t 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 overnment. [applause] and e say in the abstract, we wil 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 for applause afterwards from that it doesn't work, because if you cut off the head of a 100-headed hydra, another one the only correct answer is to shut it down andd don't rebuild the same cancer you created in the first place. it'sractical. a good thing about thes 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 thefs are what we need to bring to the d.c. bureaucracy, what you musk did to twitter. we need to bring itothe 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 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 door, we in the public have to see it andof 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 actualet 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 responsibleon ultimately spying on and attempting to 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,s essentially what the fbi -- do we need a central intelligence agency which goes fomenting coups? pple a elected governments too. in fairness. [lclint: that is probably the biggest from our conversations in the past. seems to me that america got off the path it was supposed to be on som the foundation of the central bank and the sba. -- and the sbi. david: woodrow wilson.

clint: yes, the progressive era from why can'd, but rather, it just shut down, abolished, and be done with it? [applausvivek: let's start with step one, we have the long-run future and then we havehe months. i think the moment we live in right now, we cannot let this one slipped ou 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 ofthere are two risks people take. one risk is you will not cut enough. he will cut back but you will not cut 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 w then if we discover that we cut some muscle and we find out 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, to. i suspect in 99% of the cases we will discover we didn't. i think that is th javier to the united states of america. on steroids. mucho milei. [applause] i loved meeting thatuy earlier this year. he is an animal. would be a next administration, i think. david: when you met him, er you said he is a big miseshayek guy. vivek: i said that before hand and then when he actually said ragbar. ok. i can only get so erect. [laughter] [applause] this is a bit off topic. since this milei thing cam a hayek

guy. if you haven't read 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 h but that book is brilliant. but he made a case that didn't tap into the moral actually being a libertarian. and i think hayek did that in a beautiful way, he made a moral case for capitalism was it the right system it was the only justice system. the constitutional, 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 moral worth. that means you aren't morally so wordy that youit causes you to say that less, you are worth less, which is how we operate in the talist 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 david: 's fair enough. it is fair that thguy who brought you into this has a special part --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.

clint: can i ask a of what you have to say and75% 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 actively worked to undermine a sitting president. i think it also arguably our responsible for assapresidents 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]

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 unambiguously -- i mean, come on, it looks. i invite you to dream on aerosmith. [laughter] david: guys. i get stuff you don't agree with, but he is kind of right about that. [laughter] this prediction is that it will bet. vivek: let me lift the curtain a bit. it's fact. ensive 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 re about a position of central bank digital curncy..

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 yeah, the c-d-b-t know it was. i told him what it is. he said, what ishey want it? i believe if you don't have a good argument for the other 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 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 that going to be by getting percent? or by some other means of actually 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 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 thistion cycle, unambiguously, the best chance is making sure of two things. ones, 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 next administration.

that is what i can tell you. [scattereddavid: that was a 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. me ask this question and i will ask this to you clint. that thevivek 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 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. yo knows how that idiot would note -- he said donald trump was ultimately responsible for green lighting $100 proxy wars against nuclear powers. that is not america first. that does not make america great again. that is neoconservatism. that is nikki 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 you have waited on the aid package? would you have can tell you, i would have voted no.

hat advances the best interests of the united states. do i think tiktok for youth? i don't. it's disgusting. do i think the government should be in the business of banning individual com 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 partlly owned by a chinese subsidiary, or is it because of, say, a different nation? vivek: you are talking about a foreign nation beginning in mammy? facebook live unit is the reason we passed what i believe. they are literally taking the same videos 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 electric goods. suddenly tiktok is the issue. here is the way i look at passing laws. i can respect ing 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 arewhat users see to prop up theyes, 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 people? no, but it is separate from asking whether he will pass a bill banning the existence of a particular comnd unconstitutional and that is what i am against it. you can sag 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, clint, if there were to be -- i think a lot of people in this room probablyagree -- 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 d some boos. for the people in thiskv room, what is the thing that you just can't get over to say ok to i can swallow this bill that we might agree on some issues with donald trump, all the right people hateclint: it's interesting. 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 ey 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 abt 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 animus particularly between you and i, but there is a tremendous amount of animosity between myself and the gop who hasound 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 int: 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 theoutcome?

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 partwa responsible for leading us into. ssay this about donald trump, he was the single person who back in 2016, will put in iraq war, was toxic in the republican r 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 that is what takes real courage. i would sooner gothis 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 spect -- in terms of people who got double digit actually in the late stages of the primary to me someho the next level? what does america first argument, it's for opportunity. one thing i will tell you is i am not a gop 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 note 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 ke the war machine and the money printing machine running, you have the american first movement -- america first movement. the future of a is still being defined as we speak. i want you all to understand, this is a major 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 stateds 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 allegianceunited 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 here. that is the opportunity in front of us. i think e go in the direction of just saying this is a separate view and we view that as o have the influence of shaping it. it will be an opportunity to shape thethis country by joining, fusing libertarian and positive national pride-oriented nationalist instincts that 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 moderatingclint: you have opinions,

david? [laughter] 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 it was an amazing woman. that rhetoric is substantially preferable to neocon rhetoric aboutud 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 otheray, he is bragging about how aid to loan, not a gift, healthy influence that permitted by the way, it's a loan with 0% interest and no enforcement mechanism of them payi it back. [laughter] it seems to me like he is giving us some of the people being floated around aye heard rue mofers marco rubio being

considered for v.p.udience boos] not big fans of rubio here. i've heard of yourself, but the question is has he learned anything, there any indication he's learned how to maneuver once in pow her vek: i'll give -- ders once in power? ivivek: i'll give you a promise on ts, we talk about individual people who are less valuable, but you asked a question, i'm going to answer it. here's my view first time this time around and i learned this a lot of things i did not know before i entered this game. would do differently in my own campaign. not ideological policy things a few things mayb just run, the sport of politics. a million things you learn us were advising somebody to do it again, or i 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 did everything right the first time? there's no reason to run again. we have an opportunir 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 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 ban 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 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 natio history combine those two thing, that's our future abody perfect, is anybody in this room perfect? anybody room god? raise your hand if you're god? a couple of them back there. you'll have to duke it out. for god. but the beauty of this country is wre 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 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 that's twhea united states is funned on. the pursuit of perfection. don't turn turn your back on that. help u perfection. that's my ask for you. i would say and talk about policies.ms of policies

i think here's one area where 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:clint what do you think about the idea of that? clint: i'll just ask a followup before ithe tv screen, how do you decide -- how do you approach 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 thiserefore 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 tearg down the weustles troy. so they gave the gift of trojan horse which they used to bring the city down from withi china has done this by viewing capitalism, not al 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 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 t mission caps. yet that same company, exact same company, as a con entering business in china, had to lobby for lower lifting

companies in the united states and is actually o of petrochina, 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 o in just reciting the same slogan the neocon wing of the repuican party that's not capitalism. that's us pretending 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 defense industrial base. that could be a coherent view a that view. for those who agree there's aminimal defense industrial base the u.s. requires, it's in 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 bawaterrer 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 o 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 i do. i see it as ultimately the reason that our indusbeen outsourced to china is beca the window. it's reall of 1913, the federal reserve act 1971. you look at the industrial base it following 50 years. i don't think that's a coincidence. we'rell 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 china and we ought to be appreciative because we couldn't afford to buy them if being made in america, what our main export is is

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. ivivek: i'll say two things. we're not going to by being china. the main argumentted states is if china is doing it. why is china doing because they want to wipe your bank account clean if you say 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

di'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 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 theher side. if somebody else is guided by 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? 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 trade relationsships with japan, south korea and other countries where

we've restricted it. if you want economi g in the united states is good but you have to be open to every oth 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 about the deep state. we're covering a lot of things. but here's an area where i think there's some daylight between the t ofou. i hear you talk a lot about the 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 them. why don't --'t you just support calling off the stupid disastrous war onst get the stuff out of the black market? [applause] vivek: i'm at libertarian party someone

defending some form of drug here's what i'll say is, i favor medical choice. so l with common ground and then i'll go to where decriminal size -- there's one candidate who wants to decriminalize marijuana high ka -- huayasca and sy lo psilocybin 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, doesot mean that you shouldn't be able to take it. you deserve to have medical choice. i st the absolute actual right to try. it's a part of what we're seeing here is, this is actually administrative blackballs where

law. the right toas passed under donald trump's tenuring he passed, he pushed firt. but the. 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 the law permits you to do that, the f.d.a. will penalize you and blackball you on any other application you 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 th country which is ensuring medical choice for medical purpose. i think let's cross tha 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 froms across this country, this is not a joking matter or anything else --

galize what exactly? i'm talking about -- i'm focusing o fentanyl. when somebody is taking a pill they may have purchased ille 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 r lf of medical choice to bear? i believe that that is as far as david: it's fair enough. i think the point people are making as theykle here is that the whole point is that, you're 100% right. that person was poisoned. they didn't o.d. on drugs. the exclusively find this in the black market. you're not going to hospitals. there's not an issue of people 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 2% window where when we

look at what part ofe 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 thk that's a net good especially when you're dealing with, and ther hits the road. i'm a libertarian for adults. kids aren't the same >> agreed. vivek: i think that's also where i draw a big line of impact that. informs a lot of stanc i david: i do agree with that. kids if my kids are listen, you have zero rights. guys, i've been given the sign tothis 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. 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. visi

runs about an