Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

[USN_Hokie]

I've been telling you people that Cuccinelli's politics are more or less identical to Ron Paul (the most successful libertarian candidate ever) for months now.

http://www.cuccinelli.com/ronpaulendorsement/

I suppose that Cuccinelli is an example of what Ron Paul would've been painted as if he ever became a viable presidential candidate. Have you "Sarvis/Taking my ball and going home" voters ever stopped to think that you're playing right into the hands of a media character assassination scheme?

Never mind...enjoy Governor McAuliffe...

[Marine Hokie]

Eh, I suspect it's a lesser of 3 evils thing for him, and he doesn't want to see McAuliffe take office. Sarvis isn't much of a libertarian outside of the Koch circles, but to say Cuccinelli is coming from the same place as Ron Paul is a stretch.

[UpstateSCHokie]

Crickets so far. But you're 100% right. If Ron Paul was ever actually seen as a legitimate threat to a democrat in a high profile (Presidential) national election, the MSM would skewer him. And apparently, based on the fact that many of these self-described libertarians have shown through many examples, it would not take the MSM too long to turn these people against him. It seems like these people are who the MSM are targeting with their character assassination campaigns against Republicans, and it works beautifully on them.

The MSM knows that the only way either party can win is if its base is unified behind the candidate. So the narrative put forth by the MSM is to always put out stories designed to keep democrats unified behind their guys, and to try and drive wedges within the Republican party. They know that many people that would normally vote for the R won't do it if they can successfully characterize him as some kind of Religious fanatic, misogynist, bigot, or racist. And the goal of the libs is to ALWAYS make it about the personalities, not the policies.

I've been telling you people that Cuccinelli's politics are more or less identical to Ron Paul (the most successful libertarian candidate ever) for months now.

http://www.cuccinelli.com/ronpaulendorsement/

I suppose that Cuccinelli is an example of what Ron Paul would've been painted as if he ever became a viable presidential candidate. Have you "Sarvis/Taking my ball and going home" voters ever stopped to think that you're playing right into the hands of a media character assassination scheme?

Never mind...enjoy Governor McAuliffe...

[USN_Hokie]

Eh, I suspect it's a lesser of 3 evils thing for him, and he doesn't want to see McAuliffe take office. Sarvis isn't much of a libertarian outside of the Koch circles, but to say Cuccinelli is coming from the same place as Ron Paul is a stretch.

I don't think Paul has ever played the "lesser evil" game. It's the reason he didn't endorse McCain or Romney. I think he endorsed Cuccinelli because (like I said before) he really is in line with him on a lot of major issues.

With a that said, I was a bit surprised to see the endorsement.

Sarvis is a nobody, but I don't mean that in a derogatory way. He seems like an OK guy, but he has no record in politics other than losing twice as a Republican in smaller elections. With no record, people can imagine him as whatever person they want him to be.

[UpstateSCHokie]

With no record, people can imagine him as whatever person they want him to be.

Hmmm...you mean sort of like the way many people imagined Obama in 2008?

[USN_Hokie]

With no record, people can imagine him as whatever person they want him to be.

Hmmm...you mean sort of like the way many people imagined Obama in 2008?

Pretty much.

[Marine Hokie]

Eh, I suspect it's a lesser of 3 evils thing for him, and he doesn't want to see McAuliffe take office. Sarvis isn't much of a libertarian outside of the Koch circles, but to say Cuccinelli is coming from the same place as Ron Paul is a stretch.

I don't think Paul has ever played the "lesser evil" game. It's the reason he didn't endorse McCain or Romney. I think he endorsed Cuccinelli because (like I said before) he really is in line with him on a lot of major issues.

With a that said, I was a bit surprised to see the endorsement.

Sarvis is a nobody, but I don't mean that in a derogatory way. He seems like an OK guy, but he has no record in politics other than losing twice as a Republican in smaller elections. With no record, people can imagine him as whatever person they want him to be.

You make a good point. I can't back up the lesser of evils thing.
I want to be clear that Sarvis isn't particularly libertarian. His views are roughly similar to Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul had no interest in endorsing him either.
I don't see how Ron Paul can be considered all that close to Cuccinelli. As far as I know, Ron Paul doesn't support kidnapping Marines over Facebook posts. Ron Paul is a minarchist who believes in a limited night watchmen government, based on natural rights and the non-aggression principle. I'm not aware of any evidence that Cuccinelli is the same, even if the end result is that they have some similar policies.

[USN_Hokie]

I want to be clear that Sarvis isn't particularly libertarian. His views are roughly similar to Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul had no interest in endorsing him either.

Agree with this.

I don't see how Ron Paul can be considered all that close to Cuccinelli. As far as I know, Ron Paul doesn't support kidnapping Marines over Facebook posts. Ron Paul is a minarchist who believes in a limited night watchmen government, based on natural rights and the non-aggression principle. I'm not aware of any evidence that Cuccinelli is the same, even if the end result is that they have some similar policies.

I don't get the Marine/Facebook reference

WRT the second part, I think the context (States Rights vs. Federal powers) is very important. While I agree with everything you said in the context of the federal gov't, Ron Paul (and Cuccinelli) is a big proponent on states rights and I feel they're pretty close in positions in that regard.

[Marine Hokie]

I don't get the Marine/Facebook reference

A Marine in Virginia made anti-government posts on Facebook, agents broke into his house (with no warrant), kidnapped him, and he was institutionalized against his will for a month. Cuccinelli refused to help him out, even though he was never charged with any crime. A judge finally got involved to order his release. He's also refused to investigate the government agents for the illegal arrest and detainment, even when a member of the VA legislature asked him to.

WRT the second part, I think the context (States Rights vs. Federal powers) is very important. While I agree with everything you said in the context of the federal gov't, Ron Paul (and Cuccinelli) is a big proponent on states rights and I feel they're pretty close in positions in that regard.

When a libertarian advocates shifting something from the US gov't to the state gov't, they don't really think the state should have that power, just that they want to take as much away from the US gov't as possible and limit it to what's in the constitution. For instance, the 10th Amendment Center is run by voluntaryists/anarchists.
I haven't seen anything to suggest Cuccinelli is even a Ron Paul minarchist.

[USN_Hokie]

I don't get the Marine/Facebook reference

A Marine in Virginia made anti-government posts on Facebook, agents broke into his house (with no warrant), kidnapped him, and he was institutionalized against his will for a month. Cuccinelli refused to help him out, even though he was never charged with any crime. A judge finally got involved to order his release. He's also refused to investigate the government agents for the illegal arrest and detainment, even when a member of the VA legislature asked him to.

WRT the second part, I think the context (States Rights vs. Federal powers) is very important. While I agree with everything you said in the context of the federal gov't, Ron Paul (and Cuccinelli) is a big proponent on states rights and I feel they're pretty close in positions in that regard.

When a libertarian advocates shifting something from the US gov't to the state gov't, they don't really think the state should have that power, just that they want to take as much away from the US gov't as possible and limit it to what's in the constitution. For instance, the 10th Amendment Center is run by voluntaryists/anarchists.
I haven't seen anything to suggest Cuccinelli is even a Ron Paul minarchist.

I'm still not finding the story - you're not talking about the guy who loaded a shotgun in DC, are you?

I'll defer to Paul on how close his politics are to Cucc (and reading my OP again, I think my wording was a little too strong) - I disagree stongly with Paul on a few issues, but he's a very principled man and I couldn't see him flippantly handing out his endorsement. I will say that I'm not sure it's appropriate to paint Ron Paul - the man who supports/supported DOMA - with the broad brush of "minarchist."

[Marine Hokie]

I'm still not finding the story - you're not talking about the guy who loaded a shotgun in DC, are you?

No, that's Adam Kokesh. He's been charged by both the state and the US, and the agents had a warrant. He's currently locked up and they aren't letting him out any time soon while he's waiting for his trial.
I'm talking about Brandon Raub, who was institutionalized for a month against his will because he made some anti-government facebook posts. To be clear, I'm not suggesting Cuccinelli ordered his detainment. When it was brought to his attention, he didn't call off his agents, and when a state legislator suggested that those responsible for the illegal violation of his rights be investigated he refused.

I will say that I'm not sure it's appropriate to paint Ron Paul - the man who supports/supported DOMA - with the broad brush of "minarchist."

We've discussed his "support" of DOMA twice before (I think once on here and once on TSL). To just say that he supports DOMA is incorrect. He specifically said that he supported one part of it, which was to keep the US government from forcing states to recognize marriages from other states. He hasn't elaborated further, as to whether he supports section 3, which defines (for US gov't purposes) marriage as being between a man and woman. It's possible that he only supports part of the act, and was ignoring section 3, it's possible he isn't aware section 3 existed, and it's also possible he was just wrong. Since he hasn't elaborated further, we can't know that. But it's still incorrect to imply that he supports all of DOMA.
Ron Paul's friends are mostly anarchists and voluntaryists. He's the minarchist among them.

[USN_Hokie]

I'm still not finding the story - you're not talking about the guy who loaded a shotgun in DC, are you?

No, that's Adam Kokesh. He's been charged by both the state and the US, and the agents had a warrant. He's currently locked up and they aren't letting him out any time soon while he's waiting for his trial.
I'm talking about Brandon Raub, who was institutionalized for a month against his will because he made some anti-government facebook posts. To be clear, I'm not suggesting Cuccinelli ordered his detainment. When it was brought to his attention, he didn't call off his agents, and when a state legislator suggested that those responsible for the illegal violation of his rights be investigated he refused.

I will say that I'm not sure it's appropriate to paint Ron Paul - the man who supports/supported DOMA - with the broad brush of "minarchist."

We've discussed his "support" of DOMA twice before (I think once on here and once on TSL). To just say that he supports DOMA is incorrect. He specifically said that he supported one part of it, which was to keep the US government from forcing states to recognize marriages from other states. He hasn't elaborated further, as to whether he supports section 3, which defines (for US gov't purposes) marriage as being between a man and woman. It's possible that he only supports part of the act, and was ignoring section 3, it's possible he isn't aware section 3 existed, and it's also possible he was just wrong. Since he hasn't elaborated further, we can't know that. But it's still incorrect to imply that he supports all of DOMA.
Ron Paul's friends are mostly anarchists and voluntaryists. He's the minarchist among them.

He voted for the DOMA, correct? The question is already answered.

[Marine Hokie]

He voted for the DOMA, correct? The question is already answered.

He did not.

[USN_Hokie]

He voted for the DOMA, correct? The question is already answered.

He did not.

That's right, he wasn't elected to Congress until a year later....but he did explicitly say he would have voted for it. That sounds like an endorsement to me.

[Marine Hokie]

He voted for the DOMA, correct? The question is already answered.

He did not.

That's right, he wasn't elected to Congress until a year later....but he did explicitly say he would have voted for it. That sounds like an endorsement to me.

For what it's worth, he was adamantly opposed to the federal marriage amendment. He said ONE TIME that he'd have voted for DOMA, and was supporting specifically the section prohibiting the US government from forcing marriage recognition on states. He's said MANY TIMES that he wants government out of marriage completely, include both straight and gay marriages.

Most likely, he was either 1) supporting only the section he specifically talked about or 2) wasn't aware about section 3. At worst, you've found one example of an inconsistency in his limited government, minarchist principles over a decades long career. Do you hold everyone to the same standards of consistency, or just libertarians?

[awesome guy]

He voted for the DOMA, correct? The question is already answered.

He did not.

That's right, he wasn't elected to Congress until a year later....but he did explicitly say he would have voted for it. That sounds like an endorsement to me.

For what it's worth, he was adamantly opposed to the federal marriage amendment. He said ONE TIME that he'd have voted for DOMA, and was supporting specifically the section prohibiting the US government from forcing marriage recognition on states. He's said MANY TIMES that he wants government out of marriage completely, include both straight and gay marriages.

Most likely, he was either 1) supporting only the section he specifically talked about or 2) wasn't aware about section 3. At worst, you've found one example of an inconsistency in his limited government, minarchist principles over a decades long career. Do you hold everyone to the same standards of consistency, or just libertarians?

That's the legend of Ron Paul. And while he can say he voted against pork and unconstitutional spending, he also loaded up those bills with pork for his district, knowing they would pass and his protest vote have no effect on spending. His amendments increased it. Does that make him a minarchist? No, it makes him a politician whose words and deeds are at odds,just like the rest of them.

[Marine Hokie]

He voted for the DOMA, correct? The question is already answered.

He did not.

That's right, he wasn't elected to Congress until a year later....but he did explicitly say he would have voted for it. That sounds like an endorsement to me.

For what it's worth, he was adamantly opposed to the federal marriage amendment. He said ONE TIME that he'd have voted for DOMA, and was supporting specifically the section prohibiting the US government from forcing marriage recognition on states. He's said MANY TIMES that he wants government out of marriage completely, include both straight and gay marriages.

Most likely, he was either 1) supporting only the section he specifically talked about or 2) wasn't aware about section 3. At worst, you've found one example of an inconsistency in his limited government, minarchist principles over a decades long career. Do you hold everyone to the same standards of consistency, or just libertarians?

That's the legend of Ron Paul. And while he can say he voted against pork and unconstitutional spending, he also loaded up those bills with pork for his district, knowing they would pass and his protest vote have no effect on spending. His amendments increased it. Does that make him a minarchist? No, it makes him a politician whose words and deeds are at odds,just like the rest of them.

The talking point you're repeating has long since been settled. Pork and earmarks aren't the same thing. Earmarks don't increase spending, he was attempting to direct spending that would happen either way, while ultimately voting against the bill. There are certainly examples of times he's been wrong and/or inconsistent with the principles of liberty. This isn't one of them. Feel free to try again.

[USN_Hokie]

He voted for the DOMA, correct? The question is already answered.

He did not.

That's right, he wasn't elected to Congress until a year later....but he did explicitly say he would have voted for it. That sounds like an endorsement to me.

For what it's worth, he was adamantly opposed to the federal marriage amendment. He said ONE TIME that he'd have voted for DOMA, and was supporting specifically the section prohibiting the US government from forcing marriage recognition on states. He's said MANY TIMES that he wants government out of marriage completely, include both straight and gay marriages.

Most likely, he was either 1) supporting only the section he specifically talked about or 2) wasn't aware about section 3. At worst, you've found one example of an inconsistency in his limited government, minarchist principles over a decades long career. Do you hold everyone to the same standards of consistency, or just libertarians?

That's the legend of Ron Paul. And while he can say he voted against pork and unconstitutional spending, he also loaded up those bills with pork for his district, knowing they would pass and his protest vote have no effect on spending. His amendments increased it. Does that make him a minarchist? No, it makes him a politician whose words and deeds are at odds,just like the rest of them.

The talking point you're repeating has long since been settled. Pork and earmarks aren't the same thing. Earmarks don't increase spending, he was attempting to direct spending that would happen either way, while ultimately voting against the bill. There are certainly examples of times he's been wrong and/or inconsistent with the principles of liberty. This isn't one of them. Feel free to try again.

This thread is completely derailed now, but that rationale sounds like the same one a looter would use (if I don't take it, someone else would...).

Besides, I found it completely incongruent with his platform while running for president - how ridiculous is it that congressman Ron Paul would vote for legislation that President Ron Paul would (presumably) veto....or at a minimum, not ask for?

[awesome guy]

He voted for the DOMA, correct? The question is already answered.

He did not.

That's right, he wasn't elected to Congress until a year later....but he did explicitly say he would have voted for it. That sounds like an endorsement to me.

For what it's worth, he was adamantly opposed to the federal marriage amendment. He said ONE TIME that he'd have voted for DOMA, and was supporting specifically the section prohibiting the US government from forcing marriage recognition on states. He's said MANY TIMES that he wants government out of marriage completely, include both straight and gay marriages.

Most likely, he was either 1) supporting only the section he specifically talked about or 2) wasn't aware about section 3. At worst, you've found one example of an inconsistency in his limited government, minarchist principles over a decades long career. Do you hold everyone to the same standards of consistency, or just libertarians?

That's the legend of Ron Paul. And while he can say he voted against pork and unconstitutional spending, he also loaded up those bills with pork for his district, knowing they would pass and his protest vote have no effect on spending. His amendments increased it. Does that make him a minarchist? No, it makes him a politician whose words and deeds are at odds,just like the rest of them.

The talking point you're repeating has long since been settled. Pork and earmarks aren't the same thing. Earmarks don't increase spending, he was attempting to direct spending that would happen either way, while ultimately voting against the bill. There are certainly examples of times he's been wrong and/or inconsistent with the principles of liberty. This isn't one of them. Feel free to try again.

Those facts show Paul is just another politician. No duh.

[133743Hokie]

I don't get the Marine/Facebook reference

A Marine in Virginia made anti-government posts on Facebook, agents broke into his house (with no warrant), kidnapped him, and he was institutionalized against his will for a month. Cuccinelli refused to help him out, even though he was never charged with any crime. A judge finally got involved to order his release. He's also refused to investigate the government agents for the illegal arrest and detainment, even when a member of the VA legislature asked him to.

WRT the second part, I think the context (States Rights vs. Federal powers) is very important. While I agree with everything you said in the context of the federal gov't, Ron Paul (and Cuccinelli) is a big proponent on states rights and I feel they're pretty close in positions in that regard.

When a libertarian advocates shifting something from the US gov't to the state gov't, they don't really think the state should have that power, just that they want to take as much away from the US gov't as possible and limit it to what's in the constitution. For instance, the 10th Amendment Center is run by voluntaryists/anarchists.
I haven't seen anything to suggest Cuccinelli is even a Ron Paul minarchist.

Cuccinelli was true to what he espouses -- the states have certain rights and the feds have others and they should not be crossed by either party. The arrest was a fed issue, not a state one, therefore Cuccinelli stayed out of it. He is always consistent in his actions

[Marine Hokie]

Cuccinelli was true to what he espouses -- the states have certain rights and the feds have others and they should not be crossed by either party. The arrest was a fed issue, not a state one, therefore Cuccinelli stayed out of it. He is always consistent in his actions

Are you talking about Raub or Kokesh? Raub was apprehended by state police (with secret service and FBI present), citing a state law, and went in front of a state judge. Which part of that has to do with the US government? Cuccinelli didn't even claim it was a US issue.

[Marine Hokie]

This thread is completely derailed now, but that rationale sounds like the same one a looter would use (if I don't take it, someone else would...).

Besides, I found it completely incongruent with his platform while running for president - how ridiculous is it that congressman Ron Paul would vote for legislation that President Ron Paul would (presumably) veto....or at a minimum, not ask for?

Huh? He didn't take anything. We're talking about him allocating money that has already been confiscated. Awesome is referring to bills he DID NOT vote for (and would presumably veto). Earmarks don't increase spending; every dollar should be earmarked. This is just directing spending that is already authorized. The alternative is that the executive branch can use the money however they want.

[USN_Hokie]

This thread is completely derailed now, but that rationale sounds like the same one a looter would use (if I don't take it, someone else would...).

Besides, I found it completely incongruent with his platform while running for president - how ridiculous is it that congressman Ron Paul would vote for legislation that President Ron Paul would (presumably) veto....or at a minimum, not ask for?

Huh? He didn't take anything. We're talking about him allocating money that has already been confiscated. Awesome is referring to bills he DID NOT vote for (and would presumably veto). Earmarks don't increase spending; every dollar should be earmarked. This is just directing spending that is already authorized. The alternative is that the executive branch can use the money however they want.

I know what you're talking about. The rationale (sort of a perverted sunken cost fallacy) is the same.

You never addressed the second part: would President Paul sign a spending bill that Congressman Paul filled full of pork...err....Earmarks?

[Marine Hokie]

I know what you're talking about. The rationale (sort of a perverted sunken cost fallacy) is the same.

This has nothing to do with sunken cost fallacy. Not having earmarks doesn't save one dollar.

You never addressed the second part: would President Paul sign a spending bill that Congressman Paul filled full of pork...err....Earmarks?

As we both already said, probably not (since we're talking about bills he votes against). Again, you're conflating pork and earmarks. Pork adds spending to a bill (increases spending). Earmarks are congressional directing of spending that is already going to happen (doesn't increase spending).

Basically, he's saying "I don't want this spending to happen, but since the taxes have already been collected and it's going to be spent, I don't want to give the executive branch complete freedom to do whatever they want with it". There should be more earmarks, not fewer. Pork is what should stop.

[awesome guy]

I know what you're talking about. The rationale (sort of a perverted sunken cost fallacy) is the same.

This has nothing to do with sunken cost fallacy. Not having earmarks doesn't save one dollar.

You never addressed the second part: would President Paul sign a spending bill that Congressman Paul filled full of pork...err....Earmarks?

As we both already said, probably not (since we're talking about bills he votes against). Again, you're conflating pork and earmarks. Pork adds spending to a bill (increases spending). Earmarks are congressional directing of spending that is already going to happen (doesn't increase spending).

Basically, he's saying "I don't want this spending to happen, but since the taxes have already been collected and it's going to be spent, I don't want to give the executive branch complete freedom to do whatever they want with it". There should be more earmarks, not fewer. Pork is what should stop.

WADR, that's a lot of BS. A not so successful attempt at splitting hairs. Aka, politics.