Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

The whole "a vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for SATAN!" BS is typical GOP party thuggery. If the candidate from the "Party of Lincoln" (more of a tyrant than even Obama) can't stand up to a three-way race, then perhaps you need to change the party bosses that pick weak candidates.

Demonizing those of us who choose to vote FOR something instead of against the worst choice just shows that you're part of the problem.


Now....that being said, I'm also smart enough to recognize when someone (like Sarvis) is flying false colors--he does not have my support. In this case, it's being forced to choose the lesser of THREE evils.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

DBJohnson wrote:The whole "a vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for SATAN!" BS is typical GOP party thuggery. If the candidate from the "Party of Lincoln" (more of a tyrant than even Obama) can't stand up to a three-way race, then perhaps you need to change the party bosses that pick weak candidates.

Demonizing those of us who choose to vote FOR something instead of against the worst choice just shows that you're part of the problem.


Now....that being said, I'm also smart enough to recognize when someone (like Sarvis) is flying false colors--he does not have my support. In this case, it's being forced to choose the lesser of THREE evils.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

There is good wisdom here.

There may be some GOP "thuggery" going on, but I'm not voting for KC because I love the GOP. I'm voting for the Republican because the Libertarian cannot and will not win. Given the 2 choices that actually matter, I'm going with the Republican this time. He's not ideal, but he's OK and the alternative is despicable.

Opposing votes cancel each other out. Not voting for KC allows one vote for T-Mac go unmet. Unmet votes are the margin and they're the only ones that matter. They're the "winning votes".

I even gave money to Sarvis' campaign (in addition to KC's), but I can't throw him my vote this time. I hope Libertarian candidates stay at it and eventually start winning state level elections. Until that becomes mathematically possible, they should focus on local and district races to build a base of support.

j1mmyd wrote:I even gave money to Sarvis' campaign (in addition to KC's), but I can't throw him my vote this time. I hope Libertarian candidates stay at it and eventually start winning state level elections. Until that becomes mathematically possible, they should focus on local and district races to build a base of support.

But they can't start winning until we (including you and me) start voting for them!

trailrunner wrote:

j1mmyd wrote:I even gave money to Sarvis' campaign (in addition to KC's), but I can't throw him my vote this time. I hope Libertarian candidates stay at it and eventually start winning state level elections. Until that becomes mathematically possible, they should focus on local and district races to build a base of support.

But they can't start winning until we (including you and me) start voting for them!

And people say Democrats have a hive mind! "I'll only jump on board and vote libertarian after everyone else has!"

trailrunner wrote:

j1mmyd wrote:I even gave money to Sarvis' campaign (in addition to KC's), but I can't throw him my vote this time. I hope Libertarian candidates stay at it and eventually start winning state level elections. Until that becomes mathematically possible, they should focus on local and district races to build a base of support.

But they can't start winning until we (including you and me) start voting for them!

And that takes many election cycles. I'm just not willing to live under Democrats for another 16 years while we build up credible Libertarians.

ShotgunBlast wrote: And people say Democrats have a hive mind! "I'll only jump on board and vote libertarian after everyone else has!"

Nice try. What I will do is start voting for viable Libertarian candidates in local elections in order to build a base. I'll also continue to help Libertarian candidates until we can create enough real interest that they have a chance of winning in larger races. But I won't help put a Democrat in Richmond while I dream of someone who can't (yet) win.

j1mmyd wrote:

ShotgunBlast wrote: And people say Democrats have a hive mind! "I'll only jump on board and vote libertarian after everyone else has!"

Nice try. What I will do is start voting for viable Libertarian candidates in local elections in order to build a base. I'll also continue to help Libertarian candidates until we can create enough real interest that they have a chance of winning in larger races. But I won't help put a Democrat in Richmond while I dream of someone who can't (yet) win.

But you'll still get the same objections at the local level that you're talking about at the state level. What determines a third party candidate's viability at the local level? Until people like you who are at least open to voting for them will actually vote for them, they'll always be looked at as not having a shot in winning. And are you willing to waste your vote on a libertarian running for the house of delegates and help the democrats win the house, because that's what all the republicans will tell you you're doing.

j1mmyd wrote:

trailrunner wrote:

j1mmyd wrote:I even gave money to Sarvis' campaign (in addition to KC's), but I can't throw him my vote this time. I hope Libertarian candidates stay at it and eventually start winning state level elections. Until that becomes mathematically possible, they should focus on local and district races to build a base of support.

But they can't start winning until we (including you and me) start voting for them!

And that takes many election cycles. I'm just not willing to live under Democrats for another 16 years while we build up credible Libertarians.

WE are not building up credible Libertarians if YOU are not voting for Libertarians. We'd also have better Libertarians on the ballot if half of the resources weren't spent just getting ballot access. Did you know your vote could help in securing ballot access through the next election cycle? Then we could actually have a primary of Libertarian candidates instead of just one guy saying "I think I'll make a run of it this year since voters don't seem to like the other two candidates." That's how you get better candidates in the party.

At least I can respect the decision of those voting for KC or TM because they like the person and their policies. I also respect the decision of those who won't vote for Sarvis because they disagree with him or his policies. After all, no candidate is obligated to your vote; they have to earn it. But for someone to say they support the platform but won't do any of the leg work at the ballot box comes off as lazy and selfish in my opinion. Voting for the lesser of two evils is not acceptable if there is a third choice that you agree with.

ShotgunBlast wrote:At least I can respect the decision of those voting for KC or TM because they like the person and their policies. I also respect the decision of those who won't vote for Sarvis because they disagree with him or his policies. After all, no candidate is obligated to your vote; they have to earn it. But for someone to say they support the platform but won't do any of the leg work at the ballot box comes off as lazy and selfish in my opinion. Voting for the lesser of two evils is not acceptable if there is a third choice that you agree with.

^^^ This! I agree Sarvis is no Libertarian but there is still far too much GOP whining over the effects of their weak candidate.

The fact of the matter is that MANY of us would still support the GOP had the GOP not abandoned its stated principles.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Ken Cuccinelli is an excellent candidate for Governor. I will say it correctly: Ken Cuccinelli is the best-qualified man in the state to be Governor for the next four years - at least of those who would remotely consider running. He is fully qualified, on issue positions, personal qualities, and proven successful experience in the arena of state and national politics.

Those who call themselves conservatives, who demean him as a "weak candidate," have bought into the Democrat party line of falsehoods. It is understandable that some might believe the false hype, in view of the overwhelming Left-wing media assault on Cuccinelli and conservatives in general, but I would like to think you can rise above it.

The fact that the claims of "a vote fore Sarvis is a vote for McAuliffe" indicate that Cuccinelli isn't as strong as you wish...otherwise, he'd be leading in the polls and you guys would not be claiming that we are electing McAuliffe. Take responsibility for your party's failings.

Now, I'm no supporter of the Dems and I don't listen to the lame stream media. Fact is that Cuccinelli can be the strongest candidate the GOP can field and the GOP is still coming up short because they have abandoned those of us the truly believe in the principles of Liberty and the Constitution. The GOP no longer gives more than lip service to the Constitution (which is only very SLIGHTLY more than the Dems who don't even try anymore).

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yeah, the GOP is monolithic, every Republican is a drone of the Borg, and they are all Dem-lites. I'm tired of the juvenile Libertarians trying to win the big jobs when their candidates are barely out of short pants, and using a strategy of insulting conservative Republicans while falsely claiming that only their party upholds the Constitution.

Get over yourselves. The Libertarian party is acting like a bunch of affirmative-action college students, all entitled and sanctimonious without actually doing any work.

Spoken like a real GOP Kool-Aid drinker. Not a single word in attempt to refute your move to the left.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Dean, if political bigotry and name-calling are your only tactics, you are not worth talking with. If you can't raise the level of your civility, I'm done with you.

Refutation: As to "my" or "the GOP's" "turn to the left", that has been a hotly debated issue within the GOP for decades. The first modern "Progressive" Republican president was Eisenhower. You may not be old enough to know, but Reagan was considered a renegade conservative who went over the heads of the "moderate" party establishment and won landslide victories by connecting directly with the people.

Final refutation: Are you calling Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul "GOP Kool-Aid drinkers"?

The estrogen levels are really up on this topic. Vote how you see fit, but be realistic about the effects of your choice.

I'd greatly prefer a credible, electable candidate (one with some prior government experience) who has solid Libertarian ideals. Until then, I'm hoping that we can push more true libertarian thinking into the GOP.

I guess no matter who wins some can claim, "Don't blame me; I voted for Sarvis!" Could have printed those t-shirts months ago.

Bob--

No, I'd say that Cruz, Lee, and Paul are the only hope the GOP has for redemption...and they will be left twisting in the wind by the party leadership. They also are more Libertarian/Constitutionalists in philosophy than anyone else in the GOP (including the Tea Party subset).

But go back just a little over a year and you have a prime example of the GOP leadership putting forward a candidate designed to lose to Obama--Mitt Romney had no chance of defeating Obama because for all intents and purposes he IS Obama where his policy is concerned (he'd already designed and instituted Obamacare in MA, for example) and that gave NO place for small-government/Constitutionalists (I'll avoid the L-word since that seems to get your blood boiling) to go. Instead we were all told "ust sit down, shut up, and pull the red lever" despite the fact there was hardly any difference between the two.

Go back a bit further to 2008. McCain was the GOP's candidate and he was lousy. In fact, his recent verbal vomiting of hatred for the Tea Party subset and anyone else opposed to the current administration illustrates he's no different than the Dems...and the GOP leaders chose him to be their guy!

Now we're about to gear up for the 2016 campaign and that same GOP leadership is grooming Christie to be their candidate and he's as far out there as you can get and still have an R beside the name. Cruz, Lee, and Paul will be seen as dark horses in the primaries but they will be marginalized and eliminated the same way Ron Paul was in 2011/2012.

And everyone will keep pulling that red lever...because that's what the party leadership says to do.

At what point do you realize that the GOP is broken...or worse, that is is merely one of two faces of the same corrupt political machine that is behind the Democrats?

I grew up not trusting Democrats because I was taught what the New Deal and the a Great Society were really all about. I threw my support to the GOP because their platform under Reagan came closer to my own philosophy. But, as you pointed out, Reagan was a fluke--the GOP does not support limited government, only their version of big government.

So...as a person believing in small-government, strict interpretation of the Constitution, and Liberty Above All...what am I supposed to do? It sure doesn't include supporting the Dems. The Republicans are not much (if any) better. Democrats want to raid my wallet; Republicans want to raid my bedroom. Am I (and others like me) to blindly take marching orders from the GOP just because they are "slightly" better than the Dems...or should we vote our conscience? Shouldn't we find and support the candidates/parties that espouse our beliefs and convictions? Quit demonizing those of us who choose to vote FOR something rather than merely helping decide which of the two evils will hold sway. Instead, break away from the Hobson's choice and vote FOR something.

Ken Cuccinelli is the best choice of the three candidates in this race. I do not dispute that. BUT it is not because he has an R behind his name.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Dean, you really need to learn to stop referring to "Republicans" as if they were all alike. That was the point of my earlier post. To do so betrays ignorance of both history and today's political reality. The only monolithic, single-uniform party today is the Democrat party, which enforces rigid doctrinaire discipline among its members with fascist coercion only slightly less harsh than North Korea's. One weakness of the GOP is that it does not have strong leadership; it is in no position to demand anything.

"Republicans" don't want to be in your bedroom. That's another Democrat slogan that some Libertarians have foolishly adopted. Has anyone in the GOP demanded that you blindly follow them? Name them. If you come up with a list of names, you will find they correlate perfectly with those whom the millions of Tea Party members across the country oppose and will replace over time. You will also find that their "demands" are ignored by the large majority of Republicans.

One failing of the Libertarian party so far is that it wants people to vote for its ideology, while putting up unqualified candidates for the biggest offices. Frankly, they are counting on people to believe in utopian idealism instead of the real world. Ideas or platforms are not on the ballot; candidates are.

The course of peaceful politics is slow. It will take years before the true conservatives take over GOP leadership. The fast way to make change is violence - but that is not the American way. Patient, diligent, persistent efforts to build the conservative/libertarian wing of the GOP until it has the critical mass to displace the moderate establishment are the only realistic strategy at present.

FiremanBob wrote:"Republicans" don't want to be in your bedroom. That's another Democrat slogan that some Libertarians have foolishly adopted. Has anyone in the GOP demanded that you blindly follow them? Name them. If you come up with a list of names, you will find they correlate perfectly with those whom the millions of Tea Party members across the country oppose and will replace over time. You will also find that their "demands" are ignored by the large majority of Republicans.

One failing of the Libertarian party so far is that it wants people to vote for its ideology, while putting up unqualified candidates for the biggest offices. Frankly, they are counting on people to believe in utopian idealism instead of the real world. Ideas or platforms are not on the ballot; candidates are.

The course of peaceful politics is slow. It will take years before the true conservatives take over GOP leadership. The fast way to make change is violence - but that is not the American way. Patient, diligent, persistent efforts to build the conservative/libertarian wing of the GOP until it has the critical mass to displace the moderate establishment are the only realistic strategy at present.

The Libertarian Party has a unique problem because it is not automatically on the ballot each election cycle so almost every time there is no primary process to vet candidates. A candidate decides to run and the uphill battle of getting on the ballot begins. So really until ballot access is pretty stable to where that vetting process can begin with a primary process, the only thing the LP has to go on right now is ideology. So if Sarvis is as unqualified as people say but the LP can gain ballot access through the next election cycle where we can vet candidates, then that's what's gotta be done.

Libertarians are stuck in a catch-22. Ron Paul has used the strategy of trying to inject liberty into the GOP during his 30+ year career and many could argue that hasn't accomplished much. Tea Party came in big in 2010 but many of them got wiped out the next election. 30 years of work and all there is to show is Lee, Cruz, Paul, and a small handful of House members. It's tough to argue that's process.

On the flip side, the Libertarian Party has been around since the 1970s and in that time they haven't accomplished much either.

I thought it was obvious that I view the GOP as anything BUT monolithic (Tea Party faction, Christan-conservative, Cruz/Lee/Paul Libertarians).The GOP LEADERSHIP (those calling the shots) is monolithic, but not the party. The party is splintered beyond effectiveness. Part of that is because the conservative wing of the party is trying to make the party something it's not. The GOP started as a proponent of power centralized behind the federal government and by and large it still does. The conservative wing stands for stronger state's rights, but that is antithetical to the national party's interests. If anything, the conservative backlash during the Reagan years did more to damage the GOP than anything else because of the fracturing of the party. (And I say that as a conservative/Libertarian...not too thrilled with where the GOP was before or since Reagan.)

As for those demanding blind obedience, there's no leader that does because it would be political suicide; however, a large percentage of the vocal rank/file constantly spout the "third-party vote is a Democrat vote" bovine scat. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing it and being blamed for the shortcomings of the GOP leadership. I will not march in lock step; I will not be quiet when I disagree; I WILL vote my conscience.

I blindly follow no one. If a party wants my vote, they need to support a platform that closely matches my philosophy and a candidate that will champion that platform unflinchingly. Washy-washy sock-puppets for the Left won't cut it. (Note: That is a general statement and NOT aimed at Cuccinelli. Romney, yes...but not the current GOP candidate for governor.) What has the GOP given us in the last 15 years? The biggest thing I can think of is two foreign wars that made little sense and The Patriot Act which stripped away Liberty. The recent scandals involving the NSA are a direct result of too much central government power via The Patriot Act which was GOP legislation.

We will have to agree to disagree about politics. "Peaceful politics" and "compromise" is what put us in this hole (grave) and (IMO) is not very likely to get us out of it. The slope has been too steep and too many of those in power now see it as their birthright to rule We the People. While you see "persistent efforts to build the conservative/libertarian wing of the GOP until it reaches critical mass" as viable, I am skeptical of the success of such a plan. The only way for that to happen is with more politicians...and politicians of all stripes are too likely to sell their constituents down the river in order to line their own nests. I do not see a realistic outcome that does not involve violence...most likely from a totalitarian state and the subsequent revolution that would follow. The longer the period before that time, the less likely the cause of Liberty will succeed because of the constant erosion of our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Pessimistic? Probably...but I think it's more realistic than thinking we will ever succeed through the ballot box. The Left offers far too much in the way of "bread and circuses" to succeed in that fashion.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]