Mike Gravel joins Libertarian Party

[angelatc]

what big red statement?

My results indicated that I disagreed with Ron Paul on Social Security. I clicked on the "Find Out More" link near that topic and the page that I went to has "This candidate is no longer in the race," at the top.

I emailed them, and got a response back ASAP. They're fixing it now.

And it also showed the same message when I clicked Obama.

 

[brandon]

I got Paul, Gravel, Obama in that order.

The test is terrible though. One question was...

"Do you support or oppose unrestricted free trade"
I answered strongly support. Apparently the test reads my answer as if I strongly support NAFTA. It told me gravel has a different opinion then me because he is against NAFTA

Also, according to the test Obama is extremely opposed to gay marriage. Is this true?

 

[OptionsTrader]

Damn. I'm 100% Libertarian...and here I thought I was Indy.

With all respect, the questions are a bit slanted toward libertarianism, but it's an interesting quiz to give to a non-Paul, non-libertarian person.

It also helps teach people that there is another dimension (libertarian to statist) than the single dimension of left versus right. I like to intentionally answer like I think Bush governs while showing the quiz to Republicans and get 100% statist. They usually go, "what's statist mean?" And a discussion ensues.

 

[revolutionary8]

I sure hope Gravel doesn't bring socialism into the Libertarian party.

Lolz.

I thought Libertarians were socialists? I thought they believed in free trade and Amnesty and all that hogwash and abortion and so on?
What makes Libertarians so different from socialists?

- I am a Republican who can't stand fakes.
I will take a true Libertarian or Paleo-Liberal like Gravel or Kucinich over a Patriot Act voting Neo-Con wanna be like Bob Barr any day of the week.
I welcome Gravel in to the Libertarian Party. They need straight talkers like him.

 

[brandon]

How does free trade, abortion, or amnesty have anything to do with socialism?

 

[revolutionary8]

How does free trade, abortion, or amnesty have anything to do with socialism?

NAFTA, Planned Parenthood, Open Borders?
Isn't that all part of the Democratic/Socialist Platform?

 

[Caulfield]

I thought Libertarians were socialists? I thought they believed in free trade and Amnesty and all that hogwash and abortion and so on?
What makes Libertarians so different from socialists?

- I am a Republican who can't stand fakes.
I will take a true Libertarian or Paleo-Liberal like Gravel or Kucinich over a Patriot Act voting Neo-Con wanna be like Bob Barr any day of the week.
I welcome Gravel in to the Libertarian Party. They need straight talkers like him.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

How does supporting free trade equate into socialism? And the Libertarian Party rejected the "open borders" stance back in 2006. They simply believe that if you want to come to this country, you should have to prove you're not a criminal, prove you're not infectious, and don't take any welfare (by abolishing social programs altogether in the U.S.). Also, on abortion, the LP position is neutral.

Gravel is not a true Libertarian by any stretch. Does he have Libertarian-inclinations? Certainly, and that qualifies him in some people's eyes. But his big-government, nationalized health care and anti-corporation views don't jive with the LP platform.

 

[revolutionary8]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

How does supporting free trade equate into socialism? They simply believe that if you want to come to this country, you should have to prove you're not a criminal, prove you're not infectious, and don't take any welfare (by abolishing social programs altogether in the U.S.). Also, on abortion, the LP position is neutral.

Gravel is not a true Libertarian by any stretch. Does he have Libertarian-inclinations? Certainly, and that qualifies him in some people's eyes. But his big-government, nationalized health care and anti-corporation views don't jive with the LP platform.

Free Trade is NAFTA, CAFTA?
or is it not?
"back in 2006"

They simply believe that if you want to come to this country, you should have to prove you're not a criminal, prove you're not infectious, and don't take any welfare (by abolishing social programs altogether in the U.S.). Also, on abortion, the LP position is neutral.

What is different in the way we "welcome" immigrants today?
I guess I just don't see the differences.

 

[Caulfield]

Free Trade is NAFTA, CAFTA?

Free trade is unregulated and unrestricted exchanges between American companies to foreign markets, and I would support any initiative that helped expand that. I've never understood this delusional paranoia about trade agreements. Do I think they are necessary for free trade? No, but since the government isn't willing to knock down trade barriers, they're the best we've got.

What is different in the way we "welcome" immigrants today?
I guess I just don't see the differences.

For starters, we could make it easier for people to legally immigrate by streamlining the process. Additionally, what is the problem if people legally immigrate here and aren't receiving any tax-payer funded handouts?

 

[revolutionary8]

Caulfield,

you wrote:

Gravel is not a true Libertarian by any stretch. Does he have Libertarian-inclinations? Certainly, and that qualifies him in some people's eyes. But his big-government, nationalized health care and anti-corporation views don't jive with the LP platform.

If Bob Barr is a "true Libertarian" then I don't know what is. Ron Paul isn't even a "true Libertarian".

I am so sick of these labels, let's hear what these people have to say!
Listen to this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH9SbwSQCk4

 

[revolutionary8]

Free trade is unregulated and unrestricted exchanges between American companies to foreign markets, and I would support any initiative that helped expand that. I've never understood this delusional paranoia about trade agreements. Do I think they are necessary for free trade? No, but since the government isn't willing to knock down trade barriers, they're the best we've got.



For starters, we could make it easier for people to legally immigrate by streamlining the process. Additionally, what is the problem if people legally immigrate here and aren't receiving any tax-payer funded handouts?

How would we "streamline" the process and who would be in charge of the "streamlining"?

There is no problem with people who immigrate here legally. I am not sure why you even asked.

 

[Caulfield]

you wrote:

If Bob Barr is a "true Libertarian" then I don't know what is. Ron Paul isn't even a "true Libertarian".

I am so sick of these labels, let's hear what these people have to say!
Listen to this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH9SbwSQCk4

Oh, I agree that the litmus test that some Libertarians try to apply to people is rather absurd, but this is not to say that there are some unequivocally un-Libertarian positions that Gravel takes, that others like Barr do not.

Gravel is more than welcome in the LP, but that's not to say that he's very in-step with the core philosophy of the party or its platform. For instance, how much control does Gravel think the government should have over the economy or corporations? Or, how strictly does he interpret the Constitution?

He's not perfect, and every libertarian thinks he is, but that's still no excuse to overlook the issues he needs to seriously work on.

 

[OptionsTrader]

NAFTA isn't free trade. It is part of a managed trade system.

The term free trade has been bastardized as badly as Patriot (Act), conservative, security, defense, and Republican.

 

[AFM]

Don't forget "liberal"

 

[revolutionary8]

NAFTA isn't free trade. It is part of a managed trade system.

The term free trade has been bastardized as badly as Patriot (Act), conservative, security, defense, and Republican.

Yessssir.
That is why Republicans like Ron Paul are not in favor of unrestricted free trade, as there is no such thing.

 

[majinkoola]

Free trade is unregulated and unrestricted exchanges between American companies to foreign markets, and I would support any initiative that helped expand that. I've never understood this delusional paranoia about trade agreements. Do I think they are necessary for free trade? No, but since the government isn't willing to knock down trade barriers, they're the best we've got.



For starters, we could make it easier for people to legally immigrate by streamlining the process. Additionally, what is the problem if people legally immigrate here and aren't receiving any tax-payer funded handouts?

I don't know how we got into this discussion of free trade, but free trade does not have the definition you described. We can't control the exchanges between American companies and foreign markets, the foreign markets determine that. Of course everyone wants American companies selling stuff to other countries, except for vital military secrets or something, because that brings money into the economy. The debate is about foreign companies coming into American markets. For instance, while China has huge tariffs for American goods coming into their markets, they have subsidies for their industries which export, while America has low tariffs on imports and no subsidies on exporting. The worry here is that since America is so tied down in regulation and high taxation, that companies will flood to China since the workers are cheaper and they can flood American markets. Effectively getting rid of American jobs. I don't think it'd be that big an issue if we had the economy that RP is talking about, because companies would flood jobs into this country if the regulation and taxation were taken away.

Regarding the immigration deal, the only people's opinions I take seriously are those who have lived in the American Southwest and have dealt with the consequences. Others just can't understand the extent of the problem. This is coming from someone who grew up in Arizona and had many friends who were illegal immigrants.

 

[Aratus]

"red" verses "blue" almost triggered a classic split of 269 verses 269 in 2000 and 2004!




mike gravel and bob barr hold the answer to the 2008 election! we can toss things totally
into the electoral college if neither party secures an advantage! this fall could see a contest
so down the wire as to make the race between obama and clinton to be almost conclusive!

i said this on page one of this thread, way back on february 25th! even if the Libertarians think Gravel is
an old coot of a liberal and have someone else as their veep, most likely mr. root or mr. kubby, it still goes!

 

[werdd]

Gravel is not a libertarian.

 

[Tim111977]

Gravel is not a libertarian.

hes not even close, either. Its like he just looked to see that they were agaisnt the war and said "hey thats the party for me"