conventions this summer. ur unfiltered view of politics. powered byable.#á >>unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪ pu providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> candidates vying for the 2024 libertarian vice presidential nomination debate each other at washington. good evening. [applause]

hey everyone. . good evening. oh, no, not yet. yes. yes. [cheers and applause] chair mcardle: we are a couple of minutes behind schedule. myswamy is here. [applause] he knows how much you value your to talk to you a few minutes before the debate so that we can really dig into theate. it will be a short but spicy m 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 foras known for it and a libertarian rapper. he cast his first vote for president in 2 libertarian nominee, michael bednarik, a fact that he was criticized heavily for doing the

republican primary. hayek and mises on the campaign trail and his signature issue with shutting [applause] he has founded multiple companies unapologeticefender 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 tell you, that libertarian rapper career, vek. i took the next logical step up to being a successful referent which is become an analystwú at a biotech-focused hedge fund where i worked for seven years. short-lived career, but it was good.

i republican nomination for u.s. president, in that i have voted as many times for us republican. [applause] look, i will be 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, ave 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 . the attributes you can have it day that you are born. writing the tectons onship 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 sacrificed the true diversity of thought.

a party that in the name of equity has sacrificed true equalia party that in the name of exclusion where of you just aren't welcome. now weaponizing the justice political openness, it's not in any sense a democratic party that stands for democratic principles. 's increasingly a tyrannical vehicle for advancing marxist policies in e united states, so yes, i am skepticalthty. but i will take that -- that sounds good. [applause] it's important to call out everyb"truth is treason in their empire of lies,"g modern democratic party. [cheers and applause] and truth is treason today, but we will speak the truth and, the treason of truth here washington d.c.. i have also been a longtime skeptic of theng 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.

. look at the party that not only gave us the crony capitalist conditions for the 2008 financial crisis -- people miss this -- it wasn't greesis, it was government-ordained policy that created the risis 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] buwe saw what happened even worse than the lead up to that financial crisis, it was actually bailouts using our own 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 policy in the first place, that build out so i am skeptical of the long-standing tradition party to engage in crony capitalism, as well. [applause] come back to this because i worry that ghost of dick cheney is trying to resuscitate itself oors the modern republican party. i am skeptical of the democraticparty, skeptical of the historical establishment wing of the republican party. you've all heard from rfk jr. earlier today as like i see it. 360 degrees here. i respect his commitment to miracle -- medical freedom from that i willacknowledge 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 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 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 of the government narrative on vaccine but he is imbibing on the narrative on thi am glad he supports actual medical independence, but the facts somebody cannot oppose nuclear energy in this country and support ex regulatory state on the grnds 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 nolibertarian 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 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 i 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 ukraine. so one fork in the road is to gor 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 andlike 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 capitalism, the left-wing nanny state. i say no to that frhaomno to the neoconservative vision of yesterday permitted by the rightht pa today -- actually has to do with those of you in this room because you, too, face a fork in the road from the fear hard question for this party to ask itself, which is 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?

the goal, to call it a victory and move on? or take the 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 qu is, -- you don't owe me. [laughter] here, but the question do you want to get 3% or shoot for that of the special, or do you actually want to change thiy and working -- by working together. i speak to you as a libertarian at my core. ie 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 you get to speak your mind, i respect the question is, how do you get it done? i believe the future of this country depends on a libertarians country. [crowd booing] what i believe is required. send my challengedo we work together to actually was for free speech? so you got to speak your mind as long as i get to in return? 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 restore the actual second amendment not as a recommendation, but as a? how do we put an end to a 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] çhow do we shutdown the three

letter agencies that populat cities in washington, d.c.? we are not just reforming it for yocannot 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 c -- shut down the svi, theyd ats, the cdc, the department of education permit fire 80%l 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 how do we work together to make possible in this country whavive who we are, the cotunsting 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 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.' 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 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 owethe answer to the question, you owe yourselves to this country an answer. two corporate principles going forward in this countrypeople 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 go, the only moral duty of the u.s. elected leader is to a u.s. citizen here at home, not halfway 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 wei think we live in a 1776 moment right 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 y take the policies that you and i care them into reality and have a front seat to actually get it done. i believe many 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 to[applause]

[applause] so do what is right for america. fight for our constitution. 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] [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 it does what it means

ster 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 getting kicked off food full disclosure as ioderate 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 whe e national figures are coming to address our concerns. and i am very happy that my boy clint russell, won the vp not to p 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 aboyou, vivek, my favorite thing ab and what your campaign and your voice hasg is this kind of -- i think one of the populist-trumpist movement in this country is a direct focus 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 swamp by definition is not drained from can you speak to that a bi 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 christop hear, and they wils from that it doesn't work, because if you cut off the head of a 100-headed hydra, another one will grow. down and start from scratch and don't rebuild t it's practical. a good thing about the laws, politicians ry reading it. turns out the president -- there are a service protection rules against, which they i can't fire you because i disagree with your view on abortion or whatever from the define. say whthose rules don't apply to the mass layoffs are we need to bring to the d.c. bureaucr 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 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 f 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 transpare to shut down and mass fire a larg it will take because no amount of reform can actually get the job done. david: no disagreement actually. s. clinton: i will just add that what i find consuming it was james comey and crossfire hurricane that was responsible on to coup donald trump. there is this rhetoric about we need to shut it down and start from implies that the institution itself isn't the fatally flawed is. do we need to federal police force, which is essentially what do we needigence agency which goes around toppling dictators and fomenting cou 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 it was supposed to be on sometime around the foundation o and the sba. -- and the s david: woodrow wilson. clint: yes, the progressive era from why can't we shut down and rebuild, b 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 exactly the amount i need to. none of us is god. there are two risks people take.

one risk is you will not cut 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 someuscle and we find out there was some part 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 unit 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 sot. [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 ha 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 for capitalism that not only was it the right system it was the only justice system. the constitutional libertyout 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 yourth. that means you ar' my w so wordy that you deserve distribution. it causes you to say that therefore becau less, you are worth less, which is how we operate in the capitalist system. if you areyou 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. 's fair enough. it is fair that the guyhis has a special part -- becday, i would take a bullet for ron paul. he was the guy who introdu [applause] clint: he will be hereunday. you will have your chance. [laughter] david: he would have to be more than be here. also -- anyway. i don't actually want to. clcan i ask a follow up? i like a lot of what you have to say and i genuinely think headcount cutmassive 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. -- this is my genuine belief the fbict undermine a sitting president. i think it also arguably our

responsible for assassination of l-ther political leaders. why in god's 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 tomorrow nightwill you agree with him on 100% of what he says? do i agree with policy decisions? no. who ipresident? iunambiguously -- i mean, come on, it looks. i invi 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. bet. vivek: let me lift the curtain a bit. this is not me blowing smoke it's fact. i haveconversations with donald trump about libertarian objectives. one that is going to be flat out, at least publicly evident. we spoke backstagene hampshire after i dropped out of the race about a position of central bank d currency. i have talked to others abou th 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 di't know it was. i told him what it is. he said, what is the reason 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. here is what i will say. i think the republicanty and its leadership in the next president of the united states a better version of the south because of the existence of the people in this room. now i want that influence to be asbe. 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 codes country for smokes and invent the conflicts marching as to world war iii? how do we turn that into realit

king sure of two things. one not only that donald trump is president of the united states. but those of you in this room have an opportunity to shapehe spoke to him in the last couple of days. hej 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 that is what i can tell you. [scattered applause] david: 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. let me ask this question and i will ask this to you clint. there is definitely a point here vivek is bringing up

that whether we like it or not 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 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 aboute 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 powers. that is not america first. that does not make america great again. that is neoconservatism. that is nikki haley.

that i 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, howu waited on the aid package? would you have voted no? that is what i would have voted no. i don't think that advances the best interests of the united states. do i think tiktok't. it's disgusting. do i think the government should be in the business of banning individual companies? no. i ight on the line and i disagree with my republican colleagues who voted yes. olutely. that is a great answer. can i ask you to follow up on that you think there was this push to ben tiktoks?

is it really because as they say, it's partially owned by a of, say, a different foreign nation? vivek: you are talking about a foreign nation beginning in slicke mammy? facebook live unit is the reason we passed that bill. they are literally taking the same videos from who do you think is benefiting from that? who lobbied for this the first time around? i have npatience for people in washington, d.c. who now suddenly discove 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 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 stra 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 cen you said it? it was. was there a state actor or suffered after behind-the-scenes fuel is getting those companies to do it? was. that government was the united states of america. you know the companies who were doing it? youtube, facebook, instagram you name it. acquired it. i think this whole thing is a farce. 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.

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 the reaction obviously has been there have been things that you have been on your feet cheering for things vivek saying, a few things you had mixed reaction to, a few things that drew 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, 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. they 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. bring'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 guy us. and i appreciate you are willing to come talk to us, there is no imus particularly between you and i, but there is ant of animosity between myself and the gop who has they are ron paul and then governing as if they are john mccain. [cheers and applause]heering]

david: that is a first. thank you. vivek: and if you watch the gop debates, you would know we agree. clint: dait'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 historyth spend more on interest than our national defense permits sorry, but it's just not a listenable trajectory. and i know you know that. 8vivek: and by the way, $7 trillion comes from two wars in iraq and afghanistan. that the republican party was reonsible 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 paevidence, and it's easy. it is easy to come into a room been in these rooms too. clint: it's a hot room. vivek: to go agree with you is great from it go to the party and all wrong, and then to convert the majority in that room, that is what takes real courage. i would sooner go to ever mic 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, 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

lo71ok 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 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 movem 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. cwhat is that? surveillance state, expanded keepachine 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 nanny state in the form of a right-wing nanny state and calling it ii believe the future is combining that strand of the america movement that speaks to -- 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.n 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 of just saying this is a separate view and we view that as oppositional, you will n 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 islly 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 eclint: you have opinions, david? [laughter] david: occasionally. i then disconnect here is i that anyone what kie with your point that donald trump opposing the war in iraq on that stage in south carolina and telling jeb bush, thatt was an amazing woman. that his america fstantially 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

state" at almost every single turn. and just the other day, he is bragging about how aid to ukraine is aoan, 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 marco rubio being considered for v.p. [aience boos] reans 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? ivivek: i'll give you a promise

on this,out individual people who are less valuable, buu 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, b the sport of politics. a million things you learn were advising somebody to do it again, or i god forbid, doing it again, you'll i know for a fact that donald trump would say the same thing co in from the outside, not knowing anything about politic coming from the world of business, thinking am i going to run for a seco the first time? there's no reason to run again. we have an opportunity 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 doingvery bit

of what i am doing. that's why we have official party platform from the top down to opposition of a central bank y, back door censorship for several years ago. i think this is the direction of the future. take 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, 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 res of us is god. but the beauty of this country 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 in619 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 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: think about the idea of that? clint: followup before i jump through

the 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 goin 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 aat quesm i'll give an analogy from the trojan war. never would have won the to rian warn 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 says that the united states apologies to blackrocker i'll give a real world example manages u.s. government dollars that require them, they're required as a condition of managing the money to sayanies like exxon and chevron cannot actually maximally b fuels in the united states. they have to adoptpeee mission caps. yet that same company, exact same company, 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 capitalism in reverse. that's state-directed capitalism. that is mercantilism. so we cannot delude 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 marcanlist actor. my view is can we depend on that same country own defense industrial base? doesn't make any sense. maybe we n't need a defense industrial base. that could be a coherent view you' allowed to have that view. for those who agree there's a base the u.s. requires, it's incoherent for the u.s. to depend on that counterparty for providinge 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 unique circumstance without throwing the baby out with the 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 tile. i. i view all of it as band-aids on bullet ws.

i see it as ultimately the reason that our industrial base has been outsourced to china is it's really a 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 a lot of paper money. but that's really what we are dealing witghnow. while we import a lot of actual goods that are bng pro 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 on what is ultimately a wound that's fatal. we have to end the federal reserve if we're going to resolveand applause]ll be here

sunday night. ivivek: i'll say two things. we're not going to beat china by being china. the main argument 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 sayomng the government doesn't agree with keeping up with the 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 r 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 question. because i think china has understood that 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 engagingn mutual commerce, they're able to advance political goals through a would exclusively designed for trade. i think that's the trap we've fall and you know what i want to avoid? wars, i don't want foreign wars on this side o but we have to say if you're not playing by the same set of rules, open up trade relationsships with japan, uth korea and other countries where we've restricted it. if you want econo from china, producing in the united states is good but you have to be open toth mechanism to do it too. that's where we might find common ground.. let's talk a little bit, because the broad topic 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. c.i.a., n.s.a. another three-letter is just as bad is the d.e.a. [cheers and applause] i know you've take on a very aggressive in mexico. even at one point talking about a 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 libertarian party convention, someone defending some form oll say is, i favor medical choice. so start with common ground and then i'll go to where we differ. decriminal size --ne candidate who wants to decriminalize marijuana high9g ka

-- hua psilocybin for medical use. just because the f.d.a. approved something doesn't mean that you to take it. so that one. f.d.a. has not approved something, does n you shouldn't be able to take it. you deserve to have medical choice. i std for the absolute actual right to try. it's a pt of what we're seeing here is, this is actually administrative blackballs where we have a ri to try law. the right 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 y therapy available for anybody who wants to try it, even though the law permits you to do that, the f.d.a. will blackball you on any other application you bring before

them. that's why no company does it. so i'm focused on what i next frontier of dealing with stupid drug regulation in ensuring medical choice for medical purpose. i think 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 have met parents across this country, this is not a joking or anything i'm talking about -- i'm omebody is taking a pill they may have purchased ilgally 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.ocus 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

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. theu will exclusively find this in the black market. you're not going to hospitals. there's not an issue of petals 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'troved by the f.d.a., i think you deserve the right to try 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 w i draw a big line of impact

that. informs a lot of sta david: i do agree with that. kids if my 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 feeping an open mind. you've had an impact on me. gi applause to clint and our great moderator david as we 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] eeme>> this memorial day weekend,

a retired u.s. senate historian shares stories from her book. a collection of chronicles of senate history that she presented to senators. some of the stories told speak of the influence and power of lyndon johnson. senator. and when mark twain worked >> he was not yet a author. he was a promising rising author at the time. would help pay the bills and promote his writing career. despite his sinister appearance, he was given a job and he became a clerk. that time, that was not unusual because the senate only met a few months out of the year. they often hired clerks for

he did not prove to be a particularly good senate employee. >> sundayon