Question for the Libertarians here....

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Post Reply
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Question for the Libertarians here....

Post by USN_Hokie »

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.
User avatar
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....

Post by Hokie CPA »

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.

Image
User avatar
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....

Post by awesome guy »

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.
How has the 36 year old dreamer earned your vote?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: Question for the Libertarians here....

Post by nolanvt »

awesome guy wrote:
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.
How has the 36 year old dreamer earned your vote?
Speaking for myself, Sarvis favors gay marriage, and Cuccinelli seems to be on the extreme end of his anti-gay viewpoints.

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
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Question for the Libertarians here....

Post by Hokie5150 »

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.
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."
User avatar
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....

Post by awesome guy »

Hokie5150 wrote:
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.
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."
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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: Question for the Libertarians here....

Post by nolanvt »

awesome guy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
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.
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."
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.
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.

I don't get that sense with Cuccinelli.
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
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....

Post by Hokie CPA »

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.

Image
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Question for the Libertarians here....

Post by Marine Hokie »

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.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Question for the Libertarians here....

Post by USN_Hokie »

nolanvt wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
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.
How has the 36 year old dreamer earned your vote?
Speaking for myself, Sarvis favors gay marriage, and Cuccinelli seems to be on the extreme end of his anti-gay viewpoints.

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.
What evidence would you point to which leads one to that conclusion?
Post Reply