Question for the Libertarians here....
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Question for the Libertarians here....
What are the distinguishing factors between Cuccinelli and Ron Paul on the issue of Gay Marriage? When Libertarians were giving their reasons for not voting for Cuccinelli on TOB, this was always at the forefront. Yet, a cursory look at Ron Paul's position in 2008 (or Gary Johnson's, for that matter...before he won the Libertarian party's nomination for 2012) doesn't seem too different from Cuccinielli's.
- Hokie CPA
- Posts: 2634
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
- Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
- Party: I reject your party
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Re: Question for the Libertarians here....
Not speaking for anyone other than myself, gay marriage should be irrelevant at the federal level. When I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, they were running for federal offices and their positions on gay marriage didn't really concern me. However our governor will most definitely have an input into whether a repeal of the gay marriage amendment will ever be put to another vote in the Commonwealth. It's an important issue at the state level. I won't be voting for Cuccinelli for plenty of reasons other than gay marriage... such as I just don't like him. Funny enough, I won't be voting for Terry McAuliffe for very much the same reason: I just don't like him. I don't trust either one of them to do anything they say or to act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. Neither one has earned my vote and I don't anticipate either one of them doing anything to change my opinion for the rest of my life.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Question for the Libertarians here....
How has the 36 year old dreamer earned your vote?Hokie CPA wrote:Not speaking for anyone other than myself, gay marriage should be irrelevant at the federal level. When I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, they were running for federal offices and their positions on gay marriage didn't really concern me. However our governor will most definitely have an input into whether a repeal of the gay marriage amendment will ever be put to another vote in the Commonwealth. It's an important issue at the state level. I won't be voting for Cuccinelli for plenty of reasons other than gay marriage... such as I just don't like him. Funny enough, I won't be voting for Terry McAuliffe for very much the same reason: I just don't like him. I don't trust either one of them to do anything they say or to act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. Neither one has earned my vote and I don't anticipate either one of them doing anything to change my opinion for the rest of my life.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Question for the Libertarians here....
Speaking for myself, Sarvis favors gay marriage, and Cuccinelli seems to be on the extreme end of his anti-gay viewpoints.awesome guy wrote:How has the 36 year old dreamer earned your vote?Hokie CPA wrote:Not speaking for anyone other than myself, gay marriage should be irrelevant at the federal level. When I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, they were running for federal offices and their positions on gay marriage didn't really concern me. However our governor will most definitely have an input into whether a repeal of the gay marriage amendment will ever be put to another vote in the Commonwealth. It's an important issue at the state level. I won't be voting for Cuccinelli for plenty of reasons other than gay marriage... such as I just don't like him. Funny enough, I won't be voting for Terry McAuliffe for very much the same reason: I just don't like him. I don't trust either one of them to do anything they say or to act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. Neither one has earned my vote and I don't anticipate either one of them doing anything to change my opinion for the rest of my life.
My vote is a vote for Sarvis and his brand of conservatism in comparison to Cuccinelli's. It's not a vote or a half-vote for McAuliffe. It's a vote for Sarvis.
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Re: Question for the Libertarians here....
Good luck with that logic with this crowd...quite a few of the UWS crew don't ascribe to the vote for theory of politics. It seems to some that the vote against something is more important. To each his one, though. As my Grandmother used to say, "It wouldn't do for us to all be alike."nolanvt wrote:My vote is a vote for Sarvis and his brand of conservatism in comparison to Cuccinelli's. It's not a vote or a half-vote for McAuliffe. It's a vote for Sarvis.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Question for the Libertarians here....
That's not what Nolan and CPA were saying. At least not the way I interpreted it. I read it as the R and D not winning their vote. So I asked the next logical question, what did the L do to win your vote? The question is obviously designed to show they're voting party just like everyone else.Hokie5150 wrote:Good luck with that logic with this crowd...quite a few of the UWS crew don't ascribe to the vote for theory of politics. It seems to some that the vote against something is more important. To each his one, though. As my Grandmother used to say, "It wouldn't do for us to all be alike."nolanvt wrote:My vote is a vote for Sarvis and his brand of conservatism in comparison to Cuccinelli's. It's not a vote or a half-vote for McAuliffe. It's a vote for Sarvis.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Question for the Libertarians here....
Re: the gay marriage issue, Romney's public opposition didn't stop me from voting for him for President in 2012. That's because Romney, like all politicians, lie about various things to get elected, and I believe that he doesn't have a problem with it deep down.awesome guy wrote:That's not what Nolan and CPA were saying. At least not the way I interpreted it. I read it as the R and D not winning their vote. So I asked the next logical question, what did the L do to win your vote? The question is obviously designed to show they're voting party just like everyone else.Hokie5150 wrote:Good luck with that logic with this crowd...quite a few of the UWS crew don't ascribe to the vote for theory of politics. It seems to some that the vote against something is more important. To each his one, though. As my Grandmother used to say, "It wouldn't do for us to all be alike."nolanvt wrote:My vote is a vote for Sarvis and his brand of conservatism in comparison to Cuccinelli's. It's not a vote or a half-vote for McAuliffe. It's a vote for Sarvis.
I don't get that sense with Cuccinelli.
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- Hokie CPA
- Posts: 2634
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
- Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
- Party: I reject your party
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Re: Question for the Libertarians here....
awesome guy wrote:That's not what Nolan and CPA were saying. At least not the way I interpreted it. I read it as the R and D not winning their vote. So I asked the next logical question, what did the L do to win your vote? The question is obviously designed to show they're voting party just like everyone else.
Don't think of it as my voting for a Libertarian so much as I'm refusing to support the status quo. If the Constitution Party had a candidate on the ballot, I'd have to consider that person as well.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: Question for the Libertarians here....
Gary Johnson isn't remotely libertarian. Ron Paul is a world apart from Cuccinelli on gay marriage. Ron Paul is personally against gay marriage, but wants government out of the marriage business. As far as I'm aware, the extent of Paul's involvement in gay marriage legislation is to support the Marriage Protection Act in order to protect states from being forced to uphold actions of other states that violate their own laws.
USN_Hokie wrote:What are the distinguishing factors between Cuccinelli and Ron Paul on the issue of Gay Marriage? When Libertarians were giving their reasons for not voting for Cuccinelli on TOB, this was always at the forefront. Yet, a cursory look at Ron Paul's position in 2008 (or Gary Johnson's, for that matter...before he won the Libertarian party's nomination for 2012) doesn't seem too different from Cuccinielli's.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Re: Question for the Libertarians here....
What evidence would you point to which leads one to that conclusion?nolanvt wrote:Speaking for myself, Sarvis favors gay marriage, and Cuccinelli seems to be on the extreme end of his anti-gay viewpoints.awesome guy wrote:How has the 36 year old dreamer earned your vote?Hokie CPA wrote:Not speaking for anyone other than myself, gay marriage should be irrelevant at the federal level. When I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, they were running for federal offices and their positions on gay marriage didn't really concern me. However our governor will most definitely have an input into whether a repeal of the gay marriage amendment will ever be put to another vote in the Commonwealth. It's an important issue at the state level. I won't be voting for Cuccinelli for plenty of reasons other than gay marriage... such as I just don't like him. Funny enough, I won't be voting for Terry McAuliffe for very much the same reason: I just don't like him. I don't trust either one of them to do anything they say or to act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. Neither one has earned my vote and I don't anticipate either one of them doing anything to change my opinion for the rest of my life.
My vote is a vote for Sarvis and his brand of conservatism in comparison to Cuccinelli's. It's not a vote or a half-vote for McAuliffe. It's a vote for Sarvis.