Tulsi Gabbard Gives Praise to the Libertarian Party

The lone Democrats to vote present on Trump’s impeachment vote, who is also running for President, had some nice things to say about the largest third party in the country.

While hosting her own debate night event in light of attending the main Democratic debate the other night “Gabbard’s fiercest fans praised her dovish foreign and liberal domestic policy, a hallmark of her nearly year-long campaign, and asked whether she would ever ditch the Democratic Party, with which she frequently clashes. No, she strongly implied, brushing off naysayers who speculate she may launch a third-party bid, an idea that she has routinely shot down.”

“I appreciate the voice the Libertarian Party brings to this conversation,” Gabbard said. “It is necessary.” 

Rep. Gabbard has been praised by many Libertarians for her views on foreign policy and how she has stood up to the establishment of her own party. The fact that she chose to vote neither for or agains the impeachment of Trump showcased her as a maverick in her own right.

Out of all the candidates running for the two major parties as of right now Gabbard is the only one that makes sense. She does have her problems when it comes to the economy, but in terms of civil liberties, and foreign policy she is lock step in line with the Libertarian philosophy.

She is someone that the Democratic Party needs around like Ron Paul to the Republicans. She has the potential to keep their socialist ways in check and put them on the right track. Her maverick sensibilities and her ability to piss off the establishment is a huge check in our books.

Categories: Libertarian

Tagged as: , ,

8 replies »

  1. Interesting, I didn’t know that the democrats were advocating for the forced seizure of the means of production ( socialism ) Its interesting that people always use that word when its root meaning is not meant.

    • Ownership of the means of production is classic socialism, true. Few are actually advocating that any more. But one can leave technical ownership in the hands of private citizens and still exercise complete regulatory control over the means of production.

      What’s the latter called? Fascism? And, the distinction is minor when considering that the problem with socialism (everywhere it’s been tried) is that politicizing production decision-making results in poverty because the intricate feed-back loops and price signals of the free market are destroyed when business decisions are controlled by the political class.

      Suggesting that the problems of classical socialism don’t exist when control over the means of production is heavily politicized seems unreasonable.

      You can’t avoid the core problem of classical socialism by simply having politicians leave the technical title to the means of production alone.

    • Um, taking over complete control of 1/6th of the entire US economy (healthcare) definitely fits the classic definition of socialism…

  2. I wouldn’t vote for her, even third party, given her stance on the 2nd Amendment. I wouldn’t consider that to be in favor of “civil liberties”. She in no way represents libertarian values in my eyes.

  3. She’s a gun grabber. She may be right on foreign policy and be pro civil liberties on many things, but in the end she’s a gun grabber, which when guns are gone, all civil liberties are at the greatest risk of disappearing, despite all her good intentions.

  4. Sorry, but no. Gun rights are a civil liberty, and she is four square in favor of gun regulation, registration, and confiscation. So, thanks for outing yourself as a socialist infiltrator into the libertarian movement.

Leave a Reply