Why Ken Cuccinelli deserved to lose

[BruceMajor]

I spent the last two weeks before the election handing out literature door to door in Arlington, Virginia and the last few days going to events in southern, central, southwest and far west Virginia for the Sarvis for Governor campaign. I've been to Bedford, Chesterfield, Chesapeake, Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Annandale, Norfolk, Hampton Roads, Harrisonburg, Reston, Winchester and Roanoke.

I've met a lot of Ron Paul supporters who supported Robert Sarvis, who was polling at 8-13%. The polls were all very inconsistent, some showing the Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, at 51%, some at 45%, and the Republican, Ken Cucinelli, anywhere from 39% to 44%. Cuccinelli closed the gap toward the end, when his handlers finally let him take his balls out of the box, awakened by the public outcry against Obamacare as it was implemented. MSNBC's Chuck Todd said given another week of campaigning against Obamacare failure, Cuccinelli might have won; but it is also true that if he had started being aggressive a week or two earlier he might have as well. Rather than own up to this GOP failure, the consultants and the talk radio spinners are blaming the Libertarian.

Libertarian Robert Sarvis got the biggest chunk of his vote, over 40%, from people who said they would otherwise not vote, probably not unlike the kind of vote Ron Paul turned out for primaries and caucuses. This is important to note since in reply to this discussion, Norman Singleton, a longtime staff economist in Ron Paul's Congressional office and a current staffer at Campaign for Liberty, insisted that it is "conventional wisdom" that Libertarians take Republican votes. Warning Bell #1 - a Paul functionary approvingly quoting "conventional wisdom." In one poll, one third of Sarvis voters had Cuccinelli as a second choice and a fifth had McAuliffe as a second choice.

In the last two weeks, a somewhat desperate Cucinelli campaign attacked Sarvis, usually with weird and irrelevant picayune issues: that one of his unpaid staff tweeted a response to a Ron Paul organizer pointing out that she was a devotee of a recherché Beckian conspiracy hypothesis; another Ron Paul organizer posted 6 seconds, not even a full sentence, from a wonky Sarvis answer, onto YouTube, making it seem that Sarvis favors a new tax (Robert Sarvis has three policy papers on the Mercatus Center website calling for less spending and less regulation); others charge that Sarvis is not really a libertarian because he said he studied all schools of economic thought, not just Paul approved Austrian economics; or just the general cry that Sarvis is a spoiler causing McAuliffe to win. On this last point the Cucinelli Paulistas were so desperate to get another 2% for Ken from the Sarvis vote that they ignore the evidence that if Sarvis weren't there some of his voters would also increase McAuliffe's total. In the end, the Libertarian spent less per vote than Cuccinelli did since all spending for Sarvis was $380000 and Ken spent $15 million. He spent almost 45 times what they did. But he got less than 7 times their vote. And he didn't have to first spend his money to collect 18,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

So apparently Republican candidates aren't cost effective.

On the last day of the campaign Glenn Beck's website The Blaze reports that an Obama supporting high tech donor gave money to a PAC that gave to the Sarvis ballot drive, and every conservative chattering monkey from Hannity and Chris Plante on down has called this a dirty trick and said Sarvis is created by the Democrats to hurt the GOP. Even though the Virginia Libertarian Party always gets on the ballot, including for gubernatorial races, with or without a donation from a Democrat. And even though the biggest independent expenditure for Sarvis was from the all libertarian Purple PAC, $300,000 for radio and TV ads in the last two weeks of the campaign (and overlooking that Sarvis gave his own campaign twice as much as this Obama affiliated donor). As one Paul organizer said of why she is supporting Cuccinelli, "personnel is policy." She's right. Ken Cuccinelli deserves to lose; the GOP infrastructure supporting him is shot through and through with liars and smear merchants. Note well by the way all the conservative media outlets, The Blaze, Breitbart, and DC's WMAL that spread last minute questions for and charges against Sarvis never interviewed him earlier or had him on their air. And their friends kept him out of the debates where these issues might have been aired. Should such a Nixonian GOP be rewarded with victories?

As to Rand and Ron Paul, it's funny that Paulistas assume that they know how voters will vote, and how they will vote given their changing expectations about the outcome. Their own Austrian economics says they don't and that their attacks on Sarvis represent, as their hero FA Hayek entitled two of his books, "a fatal conceit," and "a pretense of knowledge." Surely some voters change their vote, giving it to or taking it from an independent candidate, depending on who they think is winning. The Paulistas assume that votes are static and a zero sum game, in direct contradiction to their Austrian economics, which would instead suggest that competition and markets are dynamic and a discovery process, where a new "firm" or a new "product" like the Sarvis campaign, actually increases the size of the market and the number of market participants, and where these new entrants as well as everyone else discover what they want to "buy" during the process of the campaign, not before entering it. But the Paul's assume they possess this knowledge, and that they can centrally plan the liberty movement. Norm Singleton has told me that my use of the phrase "central planning" is a smear on the Paul's. But the problems of central planning related to decentralized information are known to apply to large firms in a market economy, which may be so big that their internal operations, no longer run by prices, become dysfunctional. And since Paulistas encouraged us to get behind the GOP, now once again shown to be unpopular, shot through with liars, and a flailing failure (unwilling to really fight, until the very end of their campaign, when it was too late), it looks like this is a case of dysfunction. This hubris led them to waste a lot of time attacking, and even lying about, Sarvis, instead of competing for votes with McAuliffe. Including ironically charges that Sarvis is not sufficiently Austrian (is Ken?) or is too moderate and wonky and doesn't oppose taxes (didn't Ken Cuccinelli's administration and governor just raise taxes?)

Now the Pauls no doubt have good reasons to support Ken Cuccinelli. He quashed a move to change the election rules during the Virginia primaries last year, when only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul did the onerous work to make it onto the Virginia ballot and Newt Gingrich and other slackers asked for special favors to be put on without collecting signatures and doing the work. (That is, all the other Republicans in that primary were kept off the ballot by the same restrictive ballot access laws the Libertarians face every election, which is why Robert Sarvis aimed for 10%, to get the Libertarians permanent ballot status and free them from annual petition gathering, by complying with the Republican co-authored ballot access law which requires them to get 10%.) This "favor" (of obeying the Virginia law) that Cuccinelli did Ron Paul must be repaid. And presumably a Governor Cuccinelli would have been helpful to a 2016 Rand Paul presidential effort.



The Paul's and their groups, like Campaign for Liberty, have decided that they must centrally plan the liberty movement. They know best, and like Obama or some other statist, they want to collectivize our eggs and invest them all in one basket, the GOP. As anyone who knows me knows, I am only supportive of Paulian efforts, from Rand's anti-NSA petitions, to C4L kids protesting Syria, to recruiting candidates like Thomas Massie and Justin Amash. And I would support any William Proxmire or Eugene McCarthy type Democrats who try to liberate Democrats from the Borg that controls them, should these extinct species reappear. And the Paul's and others are free to PERSUADE us that their strategy is the best, or even only, one. But when they start lying and spinning, though it is not coercion, it is akin to the demand of the central planner that they know best and we must invest all in their 5 year plan, even if we think it may fail.

[Smart3]

Great post. +rep

[BuddyRey]

I generally agree with this analysis. The Cuccinelli supporters were all-too-happy to point out gaps in Sarvis' libertarianism while pretending that their own candidate had absolutely no faults of his own, but the simple fact was that neither candidate was anything to write home about.

[kahless]

I had thought I seen this before, looks like Bruce has been posting this on Salon, some Libertarian blog sites and the Daily Paul. Your opinion is not surprising since you openly campaigned for him.

[69360]

You were counterproductive. Cucinelli had a good chance to win. Sarvis had none.

[erowe1]

I spent the last two weeks before the election handing out literature door to door in Arlington, Virginia and the last few days going to events in southern, central, southwest and far west Virginia for the Sarvis for Governor campaign.

No need to read beyond this.

[alucard13mm]

And now we end up with a clintonite and lost a chance for a potential governor to be friends with us for 2016. I think thats the goal of ron and rand.

[kahless]

No need to read beyond this.

Not sure why I initially read that as campaigning in the past for RP.

[FSP-Rebel]

Earth to Bruce, C4L was started with the intention of "restoring the GOP to its roots" back at the Rally for the Republic, not to dabble in LP politics which many of us have fruitlessly done for handfuls of years in the past. W/o Ron's Prez campaigns there wouldn't be this ever growing remnant w/ major allies in the conservative base of the GOP. That's what it will take to win and relieve this country of the political establishment that the LP was started for in the first place. KC was a grassroots picked nominee over the establishment pick, so some insiders and their ilk refused to support him and likely privately back Terry or your guy. Also, Terry outspent Ken by quite a bit and barely eeked by. Now, it seems the LP is being used in certain instances against libertarian-oriented republicans. Ken was certainly no Amash but both have had LP challengers in their respective generals.

[Barrex]

Why you got what you deserve.... People end up with government that they deserve.

[jonhowe]

You were counterproductive. Cucinelli had a good chance to win. Sarvis had none.


This.

Neither "right" candidate was all that great. Both were leaps and bounds better than the nut you guys let be elected.

[angelatc]

The Libertarians see this as some sort of a victory?

[erowe1]

In the last two weeks, a somewhat desperate Cucinelli campaign attacked Sarvis, usually with weird and irrelevant picayune issues

^ Irony.

[Matt Collins]

Hey Bruce, welcome to RPF. Didn't see ya at LPAC this year...


Anyway, I won't comment on the rest of what you wrote, but I will discuss this part of it.


The Paulistas assume that votes are static and a zero sum game, in direct contradiction to their Austrian economics, which would instead suggest that competition and markets are dynamic and a discovery process, where a new "firm" or a new "product" like the Sarvis campaign, actually increases the size of the market and the number of market participants, and where these new entrants as well as everyone else discover what they want to "buy" during the process of the campaign, not before entering it. But the Paul's assume they possess this knowledge, and that they can centrally plan the liberty movement.

Most of the time a 3rd party candidate will get 1-3% of the vote. That is a safe bet in almost every election. It is a rare exception that a 3rd party candidate gets as large as a vote as Sarvis did.

For example this model is pretty consistent:



People
Percentage for victory


100% (all people)
50% + 1


70% (eligible to vote)
35% + 1


40% (registered to vote)
20% + 1


20% (vote on election day)
10% + 1


7% almost always vote Republican
7% almost always vote Democratic
6% swing vote
3% + 1 wins elections



Source: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f1340031d3e25504f5712bcb1&id=1e10fe3d0b

[Ender]

This.

Neither "right" candidate was all that great. Both were leaps and bounds better than the nut you guys let be elected.


Bruce has a right to support and campaign for any candidate he chooses; this is what America is supposed to be about. The problems in elections is not that the LP takes away votes but that:

a) the 2 party system has made elections a joke, and that

b) losers like to blame everyone else instead of acknowledging that they didn't work hard enough for their candidate.

JMHPOV

[thoughtomator]

The post-election analysis shows that Sarvis hurt McAuliffe twice as much as he hurt Cuccinelli.

[phill4paul]

The Libertarians see this as some sort of a victory?

For the LP it was a damn close race to achieving ballot access in VA.

[Matt Collins]

a) the 2 party system has made elections a joke, and that



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P34SUDahiA0

[Brian4Liberty]

The real problem here is that the State allows the election of the Governor based on a plurality, not a majority.

Carry on bashing each other based on the results of a flawed process.

[erowe1]

For the LP it was a damn close race to achieving ballot access in VA.

Not really. Didn't they need 10%?

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/Vr7F8nm.jpg


Bruce Majors is a long-time Libertarian activist and former Ron and Rand Paul donor who ran as a Libertarian for Congress, winning the Libertarian Party permanent ballot status in Washington DC in 2012.

[jonhowe]

Bruce has a right to support and campaign for any candidate he chooses; this is what America is supposed to be about. The problems in elections is not that the LP takes away votes but that:

a) the 2 party system has made elections a joke, and that

b) losers like to blame everyone else instead of acknowledging that they didn't work hard enough for their candidate.

JMHPOV


No one, that's right, not one person, has ever said that voters did not have the "right" to support or vote for Sarvis. I never said Bruce should be jailed or persecuted for doing so. But doing so DID made the state worse off. If even just a third of his supporters who were choosing between him and Cooch had voted otherwise, the state would be MUCH better off. Or do you think the state is better off now?

[cjm]

Cuccinelli lost because he didn't dance with who brought him. It's as simple as that.

[mad cow]

Hey,you learn from your mistakes.I'm sure you guys learned a lot from this election and will run much better candidates against Justin Amash,Thomas Massie,Rand Paul,Greg Brannon...

[phill4paul]

Not really. Didn't they need 10%?

Yes, and in the run up to the elections there were some polls showing double digit support. If your party was a minority and had the possibility of breaking the duopoly on your states politics would you throw in the towel?

[erowe1]

Yes, and in the run up to the elections there were some polls showing double digit support.

IIRC the highest I saw for him in any poll was 13%. That is not nearly high enough to give anybody reason to think he was anywhere close to being able to get 10% in a real election.

Given poll numbers that low for a third party candidate, pulling even as much as 7% is pretty remarkable.

[cjm]

For the LP it was a damn close race to achieving ballot access in VA.

If the LPVA gets 1000 of its members to simply collect 12 signatures a year, they'd have 12,000 sigs (20% over the 10k minimum) for statewide ballot access. For a statewide political party in a state with 8 million people, this should be a minor annoyance, not a hurdle.

[erowe1]

If the LPVA gets 1000 of its members to simply collect 12 signatures a year, they'd have 12,000 sigs (20% over the 10k minimum) for statewide ballot access. For a statewide political party in a state with 8 million people, this should be a minor annoyance, not a hurdle.

Does the LPVA really have that many members?

[Cleaner44]

You were counterproductive. Cucinelli had a good chance to win. Sarvis had none.

So should we assume you voted for Romney then? Romney had a chance to win... Gary Johnson had none... Ron Paul had none.

[phill4paul]

IIRC the highest I saw for him in any poll was 13%. That is not nearly high enough to give anybody reason to think he was anywhere close to being able to get 10% in a real election.

Given poll numbers that low for a third party candidate, pulling even as much as 7% is pretty remarkable.

One never knows until election day. Starting on Sept. 6 Cuccinelli flat lined and most polls after that showed McAuliffe was up. Should Cuccinelli have thrown in the towel?

[cjm]

Does the LPVA really have that many members?

Virginia has 11 CDs, so having 90-100 members per CD would do it. (the other requirement for statewide ballot access is a minimum of 400 sigs from each CD). In the 6th CD, we have about 475k registered voters. In 2010, the LP candidate for congress got 15k votes. I have to imagine there are at least 100 or so LP members per CD.

ETA:

for a US House race, 1000 sigs are needed; for a local race, 125 sigs are needed.

These numbers might be challenging for an independent candidate that has to build an organization from scratch, but for an ongoing political party that's been around for decades, ballot access should be trivial.

[Pericles]

The Libertarians see this as some sort of a victory?

And that is the nature of the problem. Moving the pile in our direction compared to where it was is the win.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

ITT entitled twats expecting people to give them their vote because 'he is less worse than the other guy' which can be properly translated as, he has (R) behind his name therefore you should vote for him. Now, this isn't defending Sarvis either, and he was pretty bad himself, but good lord you people. You complain about this shit way too much and it is highly off-putting. Whether it is denigrating us Voluntaryists for mostly not voting, or voting for 'the wrong guy' 'he has no shot to win' etc. Last I checked Ron Paul had no chance to win, but you hypocrites voted for him. Instead of attacking each other (esp. with this strategic Rand non-sense (I guess we're playing the corrupt scratch mah back I scratch yours crap now?)), how about we focus more on the targeted activist agenda's such as Stop Watching Us and rallying folks to our causes. Of course, I'm a losertarian because I think education and the moral imperative is more important than the fleeting myopic vote of the boobus which you guys seem to covet as the holy grail. Fickle be thy name.

[Todd]

I generally agree with this analysis. The Cuccinelli supporters were all-too-happy to point out gaps in Sarvis' libertarianism while pretending that their own candidate had absolutely no faults of his own, but the simple fact was that neither candidate was anything to write home about.

All the more reason that no one should have been throwing stones at people who thought Cucc a wee bit better or vice versa.

Fact still is Sarvis was a plant by the Clinton machine to win VA. It worked.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

All the more reason that no one should have been throwing stones at people who thought Cucc a wee bit better or vice versa.

Fact still is Sarvis was a plant by the Clinton machine to win VA. It worked.

Fact is Sarvis received more votes from people if restricted to the choice of the D and the R would have voted for the D over the R, therefore if no L on the ballot then his margin of victory would have been greater. I mean, White Supremacists gave money to Ron Paul, so that must mean he is some White Supremacist plant, right, or that people's decision making is infallible (assuming that is the reason Liedmont donated to Purple PAC - doesn't mean the outcome matched his reasoning). Other than that, this line of argument is pretty damn stupid on its face - since it presumes entitled twatism about voting. Face it, if people decided to vote for Sarvis over Cooch that means Cooch was a lesser candidate in their eyes or favored wonkism so that's about as entitled as you can get. How about next time the R's have a candidate that doesn't make quite a few libertarians cringe (e.g. social conservatism).

[Bastiat's The Law]

And now we end up with a clintonite and lost a chance for a potential governor to be friends with us for 2016. I think thats the goal of ron and rand.

This. In spades. The people that voted for Sarvis are incredibly politically short-sighted and stupid.

[phill4paul]

Fact is Sarvis received more votes from people if restricted to the choice of the D and the R would have voted for the D over the R, therefore if no L on the ballot then his margin of victory would have been greater. I mean, White Supremacists gave money to Ron Paul, so that must mean he is some White Supremacist plant, right, or that people's decision making is infallible (assuming that is the reason Liedmont donated to Purple PAC - doesn't mean the outcome matched his reasoning). Other than that, this line of argument is pretty damn stupid on its face - since it presumes entitled twatism about voting. Face it, if people decided to vote for Sarvis over Cooch that means Cooch was a lesser candidate in their eyes or favored wonkism so that's about as entitled as you can get. How about next time the R's have a candidate that doesn't make quite a few libertarians cringe (e.g. social conservatism).

They can't handle the truth. It's always "those meddling kids" fault.

[Todd]

Fact is Sarvis received more votes from people if restricted to the choice of the D and the R would have voted for the D over the R, therefore if no L on the ballot then his margin of victory would have been greater. I mean, White Supremacists gave money to Ron Paul, so that must mean he is some White Supremacist plant, right, or that people's decision making is infallible (assuming that is the reason Liedmont donated to Purple PAC - doesn't mean the outcome matched his reasoning). Other than that, this line of argument is pretty damn stupid on its face - since it presumes entitled twatism about voting. Face it, if people decided to vote for Sarvis over Cooch that means Cooch was a lesser candidate in their eyes or favored wonkism so that's about as entitled as you can get. How about next time the R's have a candidate that doesn't make quite a few libertarians cringe (e.g. social conservatism).

Lets just both agree that both candidates made Libertarians cringe. You made your pick with GPS tracker Sarvis and so did others with Ken sodomy laws Cucc.

[Ender]

No one, that's right, not one person, has ever said that voters did not have the "right" to support or vote for Sarvis. I never said Bruce should be jailed or persecuted for doing so. But doing so DID made the state worse off. If even just a third of his supporters who were choosing between him and Cooch had voted otherwise, the state would be MUCH better off. Or do you think the state is better off now?


It has been stated several times, on this thread, that Sarvis pulled more votes from the Dems than the Repubs. If he hadn't run, Cooch would have lost by a bigger number.

[69360]

So should we assume you voted for Romney then? Romney had a chance to win... Gary Johnson had none... Ron Paul had none.

That's a stupid assumption.

Going into IA RP had a fair chance. So I donated a bit of cash. When it was hopeless I didn't put anymore time or money into the race.

I didn't agree with Romney on hardly anything, so I did not vote for him. Cucinelli on the other hand is mostly good.

If you agreed 100% with the LP candidate and 80% with the Republican candidate, you should vote for the Republican. You have a good chance at getting 80% of what you want vs. 100% chance of getting nothing you want voting LP, they don't ever win.

If the Republican is somebody like Romney, this doesn't apply of course.

[dannno]

If you agreed 100% with the LP candidate and 80% with the Republican candidate, you should vote for the Republican. You have a good chance at getting 80% of what you want vs. 100% chance of getting nothing you want voting LP, they don't ever win.



Ok, but being pro-war or pro-drug war is worth 25% each for me. Civil liberties are worth 25% as well. The other 25% is a real belief in limited government. So if they are not solid on each of those it would make it pretty hard for me to attain that 80%.

[CaptLouAlbano]

It has been stated several times, on this thread, that Sarvis pulled more votes from the Dems than the Repubs. If he hadn't run, Cooch would have lost by a bigger number.

It's also been stated several times on this forum that the exit polling was within the MOE, so honestly the claim cannot be made conclusively who Sarvis pulled more votes from. The exit polling sampled about 2500 voters in a contest that drew over 2 million votes. The spread was about 3 percent in the exit polling. For folks that spend countless hours on political forums, it's surprising that so many of you have no idea how to read polling data.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Ok, but being pro-war or pro-drug war is worth 25% each for me. Civil liberties are worth 25% as well. The other 25% is a real belief in limited government. So if they are not solid on each of those it would make it pretty hard for me to attain that 80%.

Honest questions for you here:

If a candidate is for the legalization of pot, but not the legalization (or decriminalization) of hard drugs, does that wipe out that 25% for you? And the same is posed for your other three broad categories. Does it take just one position within those broad categories to disqualify someone from receiving your financial support?

[69360]

Ok, but being pro-war or pro-drug war is worth 25% each for me. Civil liberties are worth 25% as well. The other 25% is a real belief in limited government. So if they are not solid on each of those it would make it pretty hard for me to attain that 80%.

Everyone has their own standards. Just be realistic is all I'm saying.

When somebody you mostly agree with has a real chance vs. somebody you totally agree with having no chance, vote for the one who can win. Something is better than nothing.

[Antischism]

Thanks for the post. Always great to hear both sides of the story.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[twomp]

We here at RPF seem to only care about gubernatorial races that the media tells us to care about. There was no candidate representing our interests in this race. All we had was bad and less bad. Why was this race so important? Because MSNBC, FOX, and CNN told us it was important?

[mad cow]

We here at RPF seem to only care about gubernatorial races that the media tells us to care about. There was no candidate representing our interests in this race. All we had was bad and less bad. Why was this race so important? Because MSNBC, FOX, and CNN told us it was important?

No,because Ron Paul and Rand Paul thought it was important enough to come to Virginia and campaign for one of the candidates.That is one reason that many here at RPF found this race important.

[Cleaner44]

That's a stupid assumption.

Going into IA RP had a fair chance. So I donated a bit of cash. When it was hopeless I didn't put anymore time or money into the race.

I didn't agree with Romney on hardly anything, so I did not vote for him. Cucinelli on the other hand is mostly good.

If you agreed 100% with the LP candidate and 80% with the Republican candidate, you should vote for the Republican. You have a good chance at getting 80% of what you want vs. 100% chance of getting nothing you want voting LP, they don't ever win.

If the Republican is somebody like Romney, this doesn't apply of course.

It wasn't an assumption, it was a question.

Who did you vote for?

[alucard13mm]

Rand and Ron are trying to build "allies" and "friends" with politicians or candidates for higher office so they can get endorsements from these same people come 2016. Rand will need every "allie" or "friend" he can get against the other primary republican candidates and against whatever the democrats will go with. I would assume having a governor endorsing a candidate in primaries and general would be paramount... especially in a state like Virginia.

Now Virginia will have a Democrat governor who will endorse Clinton or whoever will be candidate for team D.

At anyrate, R team did made some mistakes and most of the blame will be on R team. They got out maneuvered

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No,because Ron Paul and Rand Paul thought it was important enough to come to Virginia and campaign for one of the candidates.That is one reason that many here at RPF found this race important.

I'm getting sick of the appeals to authority being thrown around. It's disconcerting. Anyone use their own critical thinking skills and brains anymore? It's one thing to agree with Ron or Rand on something they do, it's entirely another using them as justifications for agreement.

Also to the other poster who said Sarvis was my vote or pick or whatever, I all ready mentioned that he was bad, just less bad than Cooch and I would have voted for the LP (not Sarvis per se), just so I could see them get unrestricted ballot access for the next dozen years. I'm fine with the paulian competition in the GOP, and with competition from outside the GOP. The more the merrier. Whatever floats your boat. People acting like Cooch is a godsend to VA or the hypothetical Rand campaign are grasping. It's also known I've never been a fan of abandoning principle to score political 'got mah back' scratching. I'm also with Gunny that I could care mostly less about national politics and the game that is played for the Ring of Power. It's a massively losing effort, but you're more than welcome to awash yourself in their filth if it fits your fancy.

[fr33]

That's a stupid assumption.

Going into IA RP had a fair chance. So I donated a bit of cash.

No he didn't. But yeah I gave cash too. Too many RP supporters like to act delusional like he had a chance. He never did. It's crazy.

[mad cow]

I'm getting sick of the appeals to authority being thrown around. It's disconcerting. Anyone use their own critical thinking skills and brains anymore? It's one thing to agree with Ron or Rand on something they do, it's entirely another using them as justifications for agreement.

Also to the other poster who said Sarvis was my vote or pick or whatever, I all ready mentioned that he was bad, just less bad than Cooch and I would have voted for the LP (not Sarvis per se), just so I could see them get unrestricted ballot access for the next dozen years. I'm fine with the paulian competition in the GOP, and with competition from outside the GOP. The more the merrier. Whatever floats your boat. People acting like Cooch is a godsend to VA or the hypothetical Rand campaign are grasping. It's also known I've never been a fan of abandoning principle to score political 'got mah back' scratching. I'm also with Gunny that I could care mostly less about national politics and the game that is played for the Ring of Power. It's a massively losing effort, but you're more than welcome to awash yourself in their filth if it fits your fancy.

What part of my post that you quoted did you find to be untrue?I am well aware that there are some people here with no interest in politics in general and a dislike of the political actions and choices of Ron and Rand Paul in particular.That is why I said it is one reason that many (not all) here found the race important.

If members of RPF have no interest in who Ron Paul and Rand Paul support and campaign for,why are they here?

If you consider trying to get liberty-minded candidates,such as Gunny,a massively losing effort,washing yourself in filth,why are you here.

The mission statement of this site is clear as day.Thats it in green in my sig.

[alucard13mm]

Let's say you convinced someone else to vote the same way as you (2 votes), who'd you vote for?

A democrat who wants to legalize pedophilia, wants to kill all intellectuals and want to rape your wife or your husband. has 50 votes
A republican who likes war, wants to audit fed, wants to redistribute wealth, wants to legalize weed, wants to leave it up to the states. has 49 votes
A third party who hates war, wants to audit fed, wants free market, wants to legalize weed, and is against bail outs, wants to leave it up to states. has 5 votes.

I think we can all agree that voting based on "lesser of two evils" is bad in most cases because both candidates are usually the same establishment, big government, and is the same. But when you truly have one candidate that is the lesser of two evils... I think it might be time to do your duty to make sure that the greatest evil wont win.

Your duty is to make sure you elect someone who will have the best chance at protecting you and as much of the Constitution as possible, doesn't matter D, R, L, G, C or etc. In life you gotta make calculated decisions on which would get the best results.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What part of my post that you quoted did you find to be untrue?I am well aware that there are some people here with no interest in politics in general and a dislike of the political actions and choices of Ron and Rand Paul in particular.That is why I said it is one reason that many (not all) here found the race important.

If members of RPF have no interest in who Ron Paul and Rand Paul support and campaign for,why are they here?

If you consider trying to get liberty-minded candidates,such as Gunny,a massively losing effort,washing yourself in filth,why are you here.

The mission statement of this site is clear as day.Thats it in green in my sig.

Do you reading comprehension? Apparently not. Also can you please stop with the damn appeal to authority fallacy. Just because Ron and Rand do something doesn't automatically make it 'right'. Damn that shit is annoying. Then again, I wouldn't put it past the appeal to authority (Constitution) types anyways to forgo making such basic argumentative errors. When someone asks what's the reason you did X, you're going to sit there straight faced and say 'because Ron and Rand did!'. Lol, listen to yourself.

PS: I guess I should spell it out in case your reading comprehension flies out the window again. Note I said NATIONAL POLITICS in reference to both supporting Gunny (who advocates LOCAL ACTION), and washing yourself in the filth (POTOMAC). Reading fail corrected. That'll be 3 credits, please.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Let's say you convinced someone else to vote the same way as you (2 votes), who'd you vote for?

A democrat who wants to legalize pedophilia, wants to kill all intellectuals and want to rape your wife or your husband. has 50 votes
A republican who likes war, wants to audit fed, wants to redistribute wealth, wants to legalize weed, wants to leave it up to the states. has 49 votes
A third party who hates war, wants to audit fed, wants free market, wants to legalize weed, and is against bail outs, wants to leave it up to states. has 5 votes.

I think we can all agree that voting based on "lesser of two evils" is bad in most cases because both candidates are usually the same establishment, big government, and is the same. But when you truly have one candidate that is the lesser of two evils... I think it might be time to do your duty to make sure that the greatest evil wont win.

Your duty is to make sure you elect someone who will have the best chance at protecting you and as much of the Constitution as possible, doesn't matter D, R, L, G, C or etc. In life you gotta make calculated decisions on which would get the best results.

I guess I'll be waiting here for eternity before Mccauliffe (whatever the fuck he spells his name) goes on a genocidal rampage against all intellectuals, rapes your S/O, and assures creepy old dude's raping little children. He's certainly not Joseph Stalin, but he's also not even as *barf* good as fascist Bloomberg. What I'm trying to say is your analogy is heinously disingenuous. If he was actually a Bolshevik or Khmer Rouge disciple than yeah, at that point I may just vote for the guy with the 49 votes, but to say Mccwhateverhisname is as bad as them...don't make me laugh.

[mad cow]

Do you reading comprehension? Apparently not. Also can you please stop with the damn appeal to authority fallacy. Just because Ron and Rand do something doesn't automatically make it 'right'. Damn that shit is annoying. Then again, I wouldn't put it past the appeal to authority (Constitution) types anyways to forgo making such basic argumentative errors. When someone asks what's the reason you did X, you're going to sit there straight faced and say 'because Ron and Rand did!'. Lol, listen to yourself.

PS: I guess I should spell it out in case your reading comprehension flies out the window again. Note I said NATIONAL POLITICS in reference to both supporting Gunny (who advocates LOCAL ACTION), and washing yourself in the filth (POTOMAC). Reading fail corrected. That'll be 3 credits, please.

Cuccinelli was running for Governor,not national office.Speaking of national office,get back to me when Gunny asks for support for Greg Brannon,running for U.S. Senator from N.C.
Oh,I will support and donate to Brannon,will you get butthurt if I ever mention that Gunny supports him?

I know that you won't support him because you consider getting liberty minded candidates elected a massively losing effort that washes you in filth and it would probably be a waste of my time to ask you to keep your negativity out of the Brannon threads.

[69360]

We here at RPF seem to only care about gubernatorial races that the media tells us to care about. There was no candidate representing our interests in this race. All we had was bad and less bad. Why was this race so important? Because MSNBC, FOX, and CNN told us it was important?

No because Rand could have had an endorsement from a sitting governor in a swing state.


Actually, what I've found of Republicans I agree with 80% is that, once elected, they tend to only deliver the 20% that I despised them for.

Sometimes, but you have to at least try.


It wasn't an assumption, it was a question.

Who did you vote for?

This sure seemed like an assumption to me. :rolleyes:


So should we assume you voted for Romney then? Romney had a chance to win... Gary Johnson had none... Ron Paul had none.

But if you must know Johnson. Romney didn't pass my 80% and the differences between him and Obama weren't enough to matter.


No he didn't. But yeah I gave cash too. Too many RP supporters like to act delusional like he had a chance. He never did. It's crazy.

He was polling #1 or close to it going into IA. It was at least possible at that point. It was over after NH, if you thought it was possible after that, then yeah you were crazy.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Actually, what I've found of Republicans I agree with 80% is that, once elected, they tend to only deliver the 20% that I despised them for.

I am curious if you can cite any examples from the current Congress.

[erowe1]

Whatever the exit polls showed, they weren't available before the election happened.

The reason the Dems were funding Sarvis was definitely because they intended to get people who would otherwise have voted for Cuccinelli to vote for him. This is an old trick of theirs. It's not some new crazy theory that people just came up with for this race.

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/11/02/news/local/doc4cce3b8551b74712212971.txt
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101028/NEWS02/310280073/

I don't like the vote stealing argument either. Nobody's entitled to anyone's vote. But call a spade a spade.

If I remember, Knott denounced it, rather than reveling in it like Sarvis's supporters, and mocking the Republicans for pointing out the obvious.

[FriedChicken]

saw it pop up a few times in this thread that people are frustrated that others feel "entitled" to their vote.

I think that is a misunderstanding of probably all here.
No one feels entitled to their vote, but they do think that they should have voted differently.

I know people who voted for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Obama, etc. They all voted poorly in my opinion but just because I view it that way doesn't mean that they've somehow stolen something I was entitled to.

[erowe1]

saw it pop up a few times in this thread that people are frustrated that others feel "entitled" to their vote.

I think that is a misunderstanding of probably all here.
No one feels entitled to their vote, but they do think that they should have voted differently.

I know people who voted for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Obama, etc. They all voted poorly in my opinion but just because I view it that way doesn't mean that they've somehow stolen something I was entitled to.

I agree with you. But the vote entitlement mentality is behind charges of "stealing votes." It's the same thing all the Romney supporters did when they got livid at Ron Paul supporters for not voting for Romney in the general election. They thought that Obama voters voted poorly. But they thought that we positively betrayed them.

[Carlybee]

Love how some are backsliding.."Oh we didnt mean he was entitled to the vote". Some here most definitely did think that and all you have to do is go read the threads. I recall being called a "Sodomy Sister" for daring to suggest that the LP was allowed to vote for their own candidate. Better not make statements that can be disputed with proof. The arrogance and sense of entitlement was evident. That's okay though...keep alienating people you may need later on.

[erowe1]

Some here most definitely did think that and all you have to do is go read the threads.
I read them and never saw that. Could you provide a quote?


I recall being called a "Sodomy Sister" for daring to suggest that the LP was allowed to vote for their own candidate.
That's probably not the reason.

[CaptLouAlbano]

That's okay though...keep alienating people you may need later on.

For every one that is lost, more are gained. That is the nature of building a movement/coalition. During the course of growth some of the more fickle members will move on and they are replaced with others. What will be seen as we move forward is if the leaders of the movement pander to the minority, or do they reach out to a broader base in order to grow the movement, and thus continue its effectiveness.

[Carlybee]

I read them and never saw that. Could you provide a quote?


That's probably not the reason.

When I'm not at work and on a cell phone but feel free to go re read the threads. And how would you know? You were slinging it too. I take responsibility for getting involved at all but it got ridiculous.

[erowe1]

When I'm not at work and on a cell phone but feel free to go re read the threads. And how would you know? You were slinging it too. I take responsibility for getting involved at all but it got ridiculous.

Slinging what?

I can't speak for anyone else. But I can say with 100% certainty that I never implied that anyone was entitled to anyone's vote.

[Carlybee]

For every one that is lost, more are gained. That is the nature of building a movement/coalition. During the course of growth some of the more fickle members will move on and they are replaced with others. What will be seen as we move forward is if the leaders of the movement pander to the minority, or do they reach out to a broader base in order to grow the movement, and thus continue its effectiveness.


Good for you. Just recall it was the little grassroots people who helped make all those moneybombs successful. The ones who gave up paying their own bills to donate over and over again. I recall it quite well and the ones willing to become delegates, phonebank, pass out signs, make signs, etc etc. Maybe the movement has big money and support coming in and doesn't need that anymore, but whatever.

[CaptLouAlbano]

When I'm not at work and on a cell phone but feel free to go re read the threads. And how would you know? You were slinging it too. I take responsibility for getting involved at all but it got ridiculous.

It did get ridiculous, because those that supported Cuccinelli, spent more time debating those obsessed with the sodomy laws than finding constructive ways to promote the candidate in those final days leading to the election. A lesson was learned I think, and moving forward it is far better to respond to, but them ignore the detractors rather than getting bogged down in a debate that leads nowhere.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Good for you. Just recall it was the little grassroots people who helped make all those moneybombs successful. The ones who gave up paying their own bills to donate over and over again. I recall it quite well and the ones willing to become delegates, phonebank, pass out signs, make signs, etc etc. Maybe the movement has big money and support coming in and doesn't need that anymore, but whatever.

But you, and your kind won't be there in the future unless you are pandered to. Folks like yourself are one issue, or one statement away from dropping support for a candidate and then demonizing them. So from an activist's standpoint, what is a better use of time - to convince Carlybee why she should donate her time and money, or to go out and find ten other people to donate their time and money?

[cjm]

It did get ridiculous, because those that supported Cuccinelli, spent more time debating those obsessed with the sodomy laws than finding constructive ways to promote the candidate in those final days leading to the election. A lesson was learned I think, and moving forward it is far better to respond to, but them ignore the detractors rather than getting bogged down in a debate that leads nowhere.

Many of us Cuccinelli supporters did exactly that.

[Carlybee]

It did get ridiculous, because those that supported Cuccinelli, spent more time debating those obsessed with the sodomy laws than finding constructive ways to promote the candidate in those final days leading to the election. A lesson was learned I think, and moving forward it is far better to respond to, but them ignore the detractors rather than getting bogged down in a debate that leads nowhere.

I'm sure you will get lot of new support..low information voters..but a vote is a vote right? Let's hope they are willing to get in the trenches like the rest of us have done since Ron's 2008 campaign. This is not about me...its about the people alienated with the arrogance and condescension...just like you saying their participation is not needed because they are easily replaced. I seriously hope someone from Rand's campaign is reading this and wondering if they agree with your assessment because from where I sit no one is in a position to turn on foot soldiers.

[erowe1]

I'm sure you will get lot of new support..low information voters..

As opposed to whatever you think you are? You flatter yourself.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm sure you will get lot of new support..low information voters..but a vote is a vote right? Let's hope they are willing to get in the trenches like the rest of us have done since Ron's 2008 campaign. This is not about me...its about the people alienated with the arrogance and condescension...just like you saying their participation is not needed because they are easily replaced. I seriously hope someone from Rand's campaign is reading this and wondering if they agree with your assessment because from where I sit no one is in a position to turn on foot soldiers.

Read my other post where I said, "So from an activist's standpoint, what is a better use of time - to convince Carlybee why she should donate her time and money, or to go out and find ten other people to donate their time and money?"

This is not about getting votes, this is about building an activist network. The votes will come from the activist network 10 fold or more. Hell a good activist can bring in 1000's of votes through their efforts.

Not everyone from Ron 08/12 is going to be on board with Rand or a whole host of other candidates that will run for office in 14 and 16. We could never expect that all of the 08/12 folks will be on board. My point is that it is a question of effort, and how that effort should be focused. Should an activist spend their time trying to convince a 08/12 person to support Rand (when they have demonstrated that their support is fickle) or should they be focused on spending time finding new people to support Rand with their time and money? I think it is far more profitable spending time recruiting new activists rather then getting bogged down trying to convince the fickle types that they should be on board. There comes a time where one needs to shake the dust from their feet and move on.

[Carlybee]

But you, and your kind won't be there in the future unless you are pandered to. Folks like yourself are one issue, or one statement away from dropping support for a candidate and then demonizing them. So from an activist's standpoint, what is a better use of time - to convince Carlybee why she should donate her time and money, or to go out and find ten other people to donate their time and money?

You really just don't get it do you? It's all about pandering...or ...cough...building coalitions....from the top to bottom remember? Frankly if I stay involved it will be outside of this forum. I did that in 2008 through local liberty meetups without the condescension.

[CaptLouAlbano]

You really just don't get it do you? It's all about pandering...or ...cough...building coalitions....from the top to bottom remember? Frankly if I stay involved it will be outside of this forum. I did that in 2008 through local liberty meetups without the condescension.

And if you stay involved and donate your time and money that is great. If you don't then, that's your choice. My point is that it is pointless to spend time trying to convince someone like yourself to be involved, when you have demonstrated that your support is fickle. It's all about allocation of time. Do I spend an hour trying to convince you to support a candidate, or do I spend that time finding others to support the candidate. From my estimation it is far easier to find new support than to try to retain support from those that have demonstrated that their support is shaky.

[Carlybee]

As opposed to whatever you think you are? You flatter yourself.


And there ya go again. Not getting into a pissing match with you again. Back on ignore.

[Carlybee]

And if you stay involved and donate your time and money that is great. If you don't then, that's your choice. My point is that it is pointless to spend time trying to convince someone like yourself to be involved, when you have demonstrated that your support is fickle. It's all about allocation of time. Do I spend an hour trying to convince you to support a candidate, or do I spend that time finding others to support the candidate. From my estimation it is far easier to find new support than to try to retain support from those that have demonstrated that their support is shaky.

Again..it's not about me but countless others who no longer participate. Stop trying to single me out. Do you seriously think I believe my participating or not participating is a speck in the universe? I am referring to countless others who may or may not be willing to go the distance. The way people are slapped down on here for daring to have an opinion as evidenced by the Cucinnelli debates, may well determine how they feel going forward. But since you apparently speak for the campaign and the entire liberty movement, who am I to question? Apparently if you say the libertarians and/ or Libertarians don't matter because you have more and better people coming in...well I guess that is the final word on it...right? My only reason to respond in this thread was to point out that some were implying that the LP were traitors for supporting their own candidate and are now trying to deny that. Other than that I have nothing to add. Refer to my sig.

[erowe1]

And there ya go again. Not getting into a pissing match with you again. Back on ignore.

As if you think you weren't insulting people with that line.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Again..it's not about me but countless others who no longer participate. Stop trying to single me out. Do you seriously think I believe my participating or not participating is a speck in the universe? I am referring to countless others who may or may not be willing to go the distance. The way people are slapped down on here for daring to have an opinion as evidenced by the Cucinnelli debates, may well determine how they feel going forward. But since you apparently speak for the campaign and the entire liberty movement, who am I to question? Apparently if you say the libertarians and/ or Libertarians don't matter because you have more and better people coming in...well I guess that is the final word on it...right?

Please note, numerous times I said you and folks like yourself. It's not about you specifically, but those who are like you.

I am a big picture type of guy, and I support candidates with my time and money based on a broad evaluation of the candidate's positions and the impact their victory would have on the overall picture. I believe folks like yourself to have a more narrow focus, as people like yourself tend to get bogged down on an issue or two, rather than seeing the larger picture. The forest and trees analogy is appropriate.

I don't speak for the campaign or the movement, but am stating what I am focusing on. And I recommend this to others, given this is a public venue to express opinions. As I stated there are some who were part of 08/12 who are, for lack of a better term, fickle supporters. I believe that is far better to find new people moving forward that spending time focusing on trying to convince the fickle types to move forward. Folks like yourself, through your comments here, have demonstrated that you are not really on board with the big picture, so why waste time trying to convince them?

[Carlybee]

Please note, numerous times I said you and folks like yourself. It's not about you specifically, but those who are like you.

I am a big picture type of guy, and I support candidates with my time and money based on a broad evaluation of the candidate's positions and the impact their victory would have on the overall picture. I believe folks like yourself to have a more narrow focus, as people like yourself tend to get bogged down on an issue or two, rather than seeing the larger picture. The forest and trees analogy is appropriate.

I don't speak for the campaign or the movement, but am stating what I am focusing on. And I recommend this to others, given this is a public venue to express opinions. As I stated there are some who were part of 08/12 who are, for lack of a better term, fickle supporters. I believe that is far better to find new people moving forward that spending time focusing on trying to convince the fickle types to move forward. Folks like yourself, through your comments here, have demonstrated that you are not really on board with the big picture, so why waste time trying to convince them?


Yet you continue to waste your time referring to me as "me and my kind" lol. You better go get busy recruiting. It's not about being fickle. It's about determining which candidates are worth supporting. They have some large shoes to fill. Some of us stand on principle whether you believe it's foolish or fickle or whatever. My point is please don't come on here and misrepresent what happened in those threads when it was implied that Cuccinelli lost the election because of the libertarians or even because people on here who didn't even live there were responsible for questioning his past actions. And then going so far as to accuse people of being obsessed with sodomy. It's disengenuous and it was never about sodomy ..it was about individual rights and what lengths some will go to in order to squash them. You can convince yourself otherwise all day but all you are doing is lowering the bar, and ultimately WE did not cost him the election.

[pcosmar]

It did get ridiculous, because those that supported Cuccinelli, spent more time debating those obsessed with the sodomy laws than finding constructive ways to promote the candidate in those final days leading to the election.

Buzzzz,, Nope.

The Sodomy Laws are stupid laws that should have never been written,, and certainly should not be promoted by any "liberty" candidate.. or any "constitutional" candidate.

But that was not my reason for opposing him.. And I stated my reasons several times and MY reasons were ignored and the Sodomy law issue was pushed.

I opposed him because he ties Gun Prohibition to the "Mental Health Industry" (Mind Control Industry).
He want's to use that industry to deny guns to anyone on the grounds of what they think., And what the mind control witch doctors invent as a "mental illness". (thought police/pre-crime)

He supports that Industry and wants to increase their funding.
By his own words and admissions.

I don't want to see hm in any political office.. That shit is fucking dangerous.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yet you continue to waste your time referring to me as "me and my kind" lol. You better go get busy recruiting. It's not about being fickle. It's about determining which candidates are worth supporting. They have some large shoes to fill. Some of us stand on principle whether you believe it's foolish or fickle or whatever. My point is please don't come on here and misrepresent what happened in those threads when it was implied that Cuccinelli lost the election because of the libertarians or even because people on here who didn't even live there were responsible for questioning his past actions. And then going so far as to accuse people of being obsessed with sodomy. It's disengenuous and it was never about sodomy ..it was about individual rights and what lengths some will go to in order to squash them. You can convince yourself otherwise all day but all you are doing is lowering the bar, and ultimately WE did not cost him the election.

Post election analysis has been inconclusive as to whether or not the LP candidate took votes away from Cuccinelli or not. And I have stated this several times.

But yes, there were those who fixated on the sodomy law issue rather than looking at the bigger picture. I, and others like myself, don't let one issue be a reason for a lack of support for a candidate. Others here, whom I refer to as the fickle types, do.

[Barrex]

Carlybee. I disagree with you strongly.

I honestly want to know what is your alternative? What is your plan? What do you offer? I understand frustration and despair because of coruption, monopoly of 2 parties and all that but I dont understand why people had to do what they did in KC threads. All I read in all those KC threads and here is you opposing what other activist do. Lets say you find a guy who is pure enough for you. You decide to campaign for him and give your time and money. Since there are no perfect candidates lets say your candidate got only 1 flaw. Just 1. You can choose what it is: anti/pro sodomy, environmentalist/PETA member,asshole doesnt drink beer, vague on gun control, pro/against abortion.... You can choose any flaw you want for this candidate. It doesnt matter which one. As soon as you did it is game over for you and your candidate based on your modus operandi. Why? Because since he got flaw all of us are supposed to flood every single thread and every single outlet to spit, derail, sabotage, throw mud on your candidate, anyone who supports him, any effort and any activist actions to promote your candidate. That is what few of you did in Ken C threads. If everyone followed your path to.... well... I dont know where because I am 100% sure that it wouldnt be to victory. I am not saying shut your mouth or proposing ban. I am for little decency and common sense. Once you made your opinion clear there is no need to spam it over and over again and start flame wars and mud throwing contest until it clogs and derails every single activist thread... until it becomes sabotage. This infighting is becoming poisonous.

Live and let live.
Volunteer and let others volunteer.

This forum, movement is big enough for all if we learn not to screw with other peoples activist efforts.

[Carlybee]

Post election analysis has been inconclusive as to whether or not the LP candidate took votes away from Cuccinelli or not. And I have stated this several times.

But yes, there were those who fixated on the sodomy law issue rather than looking at the bigger picture. I, and others like myself, don't let one issue be a reason for a lack of support for a candidate. Others here, whom I refer to as the fickle types, do.

Funny how post election analysis is always inconclusive unless it supports the desired conclusion. N'est pas?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Funny how post election analysis is always inconclusive unless it supports the desired conclusion. N'est pas?

It is when you know how to read exit polling data, and understand how an MOE works. The exit polling had a spread of I believe 3 points, which was within the MOE. So you cannot really conclude who benefited from Sarvis being in the race. I did however notice that no one on the left has been critical of the Dem funding that came into Sarvis as almost costing them the race, so I gather than they believe that Sarvis helped their candidate. Nonetheless, the polling data was too tight to really give any conclusive reading on it all.

[Carlybee]

Carlybee. I disagree with you strongly.

I honestly want to know what is your alternative? What is your plan? What do you offer? I understand frustration and despair because of coruption, monopoly of 2 parties and all that but I dont understand why people had to do what they did in KC threads. All I read in all those KC threads and here is you opposing what other activist do. Lets say you find a guy who is pure enough for you. You decide to campaign for him and give your time and money. Since there are no perfect candidates lets say your candidate got only 1 flaw. Just 1. You can choose what it is: anti/pro sodomy, environmentalist/PETA member,asshole doesnt drink beer, vague on gun control, pro/against abortion.... You can choose any flaw you want for this candidate. It doesnt matter which one. As soon as you did it is game over for you and your candidate based on your modus operandi. Why? Because since he got flaw all of us are supposed to flood every single thread and every single outlet to spit, derail, sabotage, throw mud on your candidate, anyone who supports him, any effort and any activist actions to promote your candidate. That is what few of you did in Ken C threads. If everyone followed your path to.... well... I dont know where because I am 100% sure that it wouldnt be to victory. I am not saying shut your mouth or proposing ban. I am for little decency and common sense. Once you made your opinion clear there is no need to spam it over and over again and start flame wars and mud throwing contest until it clogs and derails every single activist thread... until it becomes sabotage. This infighting is becoming poisonous.

Live and let live.
Volunteer and let others volunteer.

This forum, movement is big enough for all if we learn not to screw with other peoples activist efforts.

Are you even a citizen here? I gave up giving you any credence after you stalked me all over the board the other day calling me a liar and going so far as to quote 2 days of my posts to prove a silly point. Putting you on ignore with erowe1.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Carlybee. I disagree with you strongly.

I honestly want to know what is your alternative? What is your plan? What do you offer? I understand frustration and despair because of coruption, monopoly of 2 parties and all that but I dont understand why people had to do what they did in KC threads. All I read in all those KC threads and here is you opposing what other activist do. Lets say you find a guy who is pure enough for you. You decide to campaign for him and give your time and money. Since there are no perfect candidates lets say your candidate got only 1 flaw. Just 1. You can choose what it is: anti/pro sodomy, environmentalist/PETA member,asshole doesnt drink beer, vague on gun control, pro/against abortion.... You can choose any flaw you want for this candidate. It doesnt matter which one. As soon as you did it is game over for you and your candidate based on your modus operandi. Why? Because since he got flaw all of us are supposed to flood every single thread and every single outlet to spit, derail, sabotage, throw mud on your candidate, anyone who supports him, any effort and any activist actions to promote your candidate. That is what few of you did in Ken C threads. If everyone followed your path to.... well... I dont know where because I am 100% sure that it wouldnt be to victory. I am not saying shut your mouth or proposing ban. I am for little decency and common sense. Once you made your opinion clear there is no need to spam it over and over again and start flame wars and mud throwing contest until it clogs and derails every single activist thread... until it becomes sabotage. This infighting is becoming poisonous. .

Back in 2012, I thought it was pointless to donate money to Kurt Bills, as I didn't think he had any chance to win. Now, I may have mentioned this a time or two, as to my reason why I wasn't donating any money to him - but if I followed the MO of some on here, I would have made it my full time job to let every Kurt Bills supporter know why they were wasting their money.

[Carlybee]

It is when you know how to read exit polling data, and understand how an MOE works. The exit polling had a spread of I believe 3 points, which was within the MOE. So you cannot really conclude who benefited from Sarvis being in the race. I did however notice that no one on the left has been critical of the Dem funding that came into Sarvis as almost costing them the race, so I gather than they believe that Sarvis helped their candidate. Nonetheless, the polling data was too tight to really give any conclusive reading on it all.

Well it wasn't Dem funding per se...it was a PAC funded by a rich guy who was a Dem or supported Dems but yeah..when I found out about that it did change my view of Sarvis but by the same token I remember Ron Paul receiving donations from questionable sources as well and him saying he couldn't help who donated to him. Granted if it was to intentionally try to sabotage that's one thing but if as you say the polling data is inconclusive then we don't really know. I've read that it took votes away from MacCauliffe. Ultimately each candidate is responsible for his own campaign and the GOP withheld support too so aren't we tilting at windmills?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Well it wasn't Dem funding per se...it was a PAC funded by a rich guy who was a Dem or supported Dems but yeah..when I found out about that it did change my view of Sarvis but by the same token I remember Ron Paul receiving donations from questionable sources as well and him saying he couldn't help who donated to him. Granted if it was to intentionally try to sabotage that's one thing but if as you say the polling data is inconclusive then we don't really know. I've read that it took votes away from MacCauliffe. Ultimately each candidate is responsible for his own campaign and the GOP withheld support too so aren't we tilting at windmills?

It's not the first time funding like that happens, and it won't be the last - both sides do it really.

As far as the polling. The one that is being quoted most often, I believe polled 2500 people, of those less than 200 were Sarvis voters. Really tough to say how Sarvis' 145,000 votes would have went based on polling of 200 people. Too small of a sample really.

[Barrex]

Are you even a citizen here? I gave up giving you any credence after you stalked me all over the board the other day calling me a liar and going so far as to quote 2 days of my posts to prove a silly point. Putting you on ignore with erowe1.

Ad hominem attacks and more lies. I honestly asked for your alternative. I truly did. You gave none. What are you referring to is me proving that you lied and then called me a liar. I just provided evidence that you lied. Nice.

To those who want to know truth here is post she is mentioning:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432425-OFFICIAL-Virginia-Gubernatorial-Election-RESULTS-THREAD&p=5296541&viewfull=1#post5296541 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432425-OFFICIAL-Virginia-Gubernatorial-Election-RESULTS-THREAD&p=5296541&viewfull=1#post5296541)

[erowe1]

Are you even a citizen here? I gave up giving you any credence after you stalked me all over the board the other day calling me a liar and going so far as to quote 2 days of my posts to prove a silly point. Putting you on ignore with erowe1.

This has been going on long enough that it can no longer be chalked up to lunar phase.

I'm trying to think back to worse posters than this, and I can't think of any. Lots of people have been banned from here who were far less toxic.

[belian78]

ITT entitled twats expecting people to give them their vote because 'he is less worse than the other guy' which can be properly translated as, he has (R) behind his name therefore you should vote for him. Now, this isn't defending Sarvis either, and he was pretty bad himself, but good lord you people. You complain about this shit way too much and it is highly off-putting. Whether it is denigrating us Voluntaryists for mostly not voting, or voting for 'the wrong guy' 'he has no shot to win' etc. Last I checked Ron Paul had no chance to win, but you hypocrites voted for him. Instead of attacking each other (esp. with this strategic Rand non-sense (I guess we're playing the corrupt scratch mah back I scratch yours crap now?)), how about we focus more on the targeted activist agenda's such as Stop Watching Us and rallying folks to our causes. Of course, I'm a losertarian because I think education and the moral imperative is more important than the fleeting myopic vote of the boobus which you guys seem to covet as the holy grail. Fickle be thy name.
Nail meet head...spot on. It's what I've been saying too, but I'm an ignorant fuck losertarian.

[belian78]

But you, and your kind won't be there in the future unless you are pandered to. Folks like yourself are one issue, or one statement away from dropping support for a candidate and then demonizing them. So from an activist's standpoint, what is a better use of time - to convince Carlybee why she should donate her time and money, or to go out and find ten other people to donate their time and money?
Seriously, you and those that think the way you do are the antithesis of the idealism and hope that started this site and the wave of support for Ron that built the last 6 years.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Seriously, you and those that think the way you do are the antithesis of the idealism and hope that started this site and the wave of support for Ron that built the last 6 years.

I don't operate my life based on idealism. Idealism is for third party purists and their bi-monthly meetings at Denny's where they pat themselves on the back for their "principle" and talk about how everyone else sucks.

I am a realist, not an idealist.

[belian78]

I don't operate my life based on idealism. Idealism is for third party purists and their bi-monthly meetings at Denny's where they pat themselves on the back for their "principle" and talk about how everyone else sucks.

I am a realist, not an idealist.
And you are part of why nothing will change in this country until it completely falls apart, and is forced to put it's self back together. Your kind makes me physically ill.

[CaptLouAlbano]

And you are part of why nothing will change in this country until it completely falls apart, and is forced to put it's self back together. Your kind makes me physically ill.

And I will say the same about your kind as well. You sit there and dream - while folks like myself actually roll up our sleeves and try to do something about it all.

And a little dose of reality for you. If it does all fall apart, if you honestly think the people of this country will gravitate toward liberty rather than full blown socialism, I want some of that stuff you are smoking.

[Carlybee]

Okay...tried to be reasonable then the name calling starts. I have things to do. Hopefully I made my point in between being called "me and my kind", "fickle" and "the worst poster ever". Have a lovely day.

[pcosmar]

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/19/cia-admits-behavioral-engineering-on-humans-mk-ultra/

MIND CONTROLThis may be old information, but many people have yet to hear about project MK Ultra. It was the name for a previously classified research program through the CIA’s scientific intelligence division. It was the CIA’s program of research in behavioral modification on human beings that’s now declassified. The United States government even issued a national apology for the program while Bill Clinton was in office. We often hear stories about mind control and human experimentation without really considering the reality behind the phenomenon. Is it really that hard to believe? Scientific experimentation is not only limited to animals. It can be hard to fathom that there are organisations on the planet that would actually subject human beings to experimentation, torture and more in order to manipulate people’s individual mental states as well as alter brain functions. If you step outside of yourself and look at the planet from an external perspective, we have an energy industry that thrives off of oil and suppression of clean, zero point energy. We have a health industry that thrives off of genetically engineering our food. Big pharmaceutical companies and the suppression of cures. And we have a small group of multinational corporations that own the media and all industries mentioned above. What is even more revealing is that all of the money that goes into the department of defense and intelligence agencies is connected to all other industries that govern our planet. It is evidently clear that the ones we give our power over to so easily do not have our best interests at hand, and are searching for information and methods in order to control and manipulate the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

Project MKUltra is the code name of an illegal U.S. government human research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division.

Extent of participation

Forty-four American colleges or universities, 15 research foundations or chemical or pharmaceutical companies and the like including Sandoz (now Novartis) and Eli Lilly and Company, 12 hospitals or clinics (in addition to those associated with universities), and three prisons are known to have participated in MKUltra.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/20/cuccinelli-mental-health-care-in-virginia-will-be-/?page=all

“I’ve made one spending promise, and it’s mental health,” he said in a recent discussion with reporters and editors from The Washington Times. “And most of that is going to be shifted within Medicaid. We have huge — and I’m talking on the order of the tens of millions of dollars — expenditures in what are called waiver programs, and we can move that money around without federal permission.”



http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/oct/07/ken-cuccinelli/cuccinelli-says-virginia-no-1-stopping-mentally-il/
"What we’ve done in Virginia is we have become the number one state per capita in screening out people with mental illness from gun purchases,"
Ken Cuccinelli

Virginia became the national leader in submitting mental health records to the national background check system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry



Political abuse of psychiatry is the purported misuse of psychiatric diagnosis, detention and treatment for the purposes of obstructing the fundamental human rights of certain groups and individuals in a society.


Dangerous,, Very very dangerous.

[pcosmar]

I am a realist, not an idealist.

Reality Sucks..

And electing a dangerous madman will not help it any.
Ken Cuccinelli is dangerous.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Reality Sucks..

And electing a dangerous madman will not help it any.
Ken Cuccinelli is dangerous.

Hardly dangerous. And the good far outweighed the bad, and not to mention that the alternative is far worse. So instead of having an ally in the VA Gov seat, we have an enemy.

But you can be idealistic and wait around for the second coming of Ron Paul, that is your prerogative. Us realists will continue pressing on with the work we are doing.

[Ender]

Hardly dangerous. And the good far outweighed the bad, and not to mention that the alternative is far worse. So instead of having an ally in the VA Gov seat, we have an enemy.

But you can be idealistic and wait around for the second coming of Ron Paul, that is your prerogative. Us realists will continue pressing on with the work we are doing.


A little story a major music producer once told me:

He was put over the production of a new up and coming acapella group that had already started recording. Something was wrong with the 1st song and nobody could find it. The man began to peel off the layers of the recording and finally got down to the very first tract; it was out of tune. The first tract had ruined the whole song.

He told me that this was the "dog poop" theory and he explained it this way:

Take a nice banana split dessert dish and set a banana in it.
Cut the banana in half and lay a piece of dog poop in the middle.
Next layer your banana with your favorite ice cream, chocolate, strawberry, vanilla.
Then add your favorite toppings: hot fudge, strawberry creme, etc.
Finally add a whopping amount of whipped cream and a cherry on top.
Take a big bite and what have you got?

Dog poop.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not realism; it's

DOG POOP.

Doing what you believe in is one thing- calling people names and expounding insulting innuendoes to those who do not believe as you do and then complaining when they retaliate in the same way is not only non-productive and a team splitter, it is also

Dog Poop.

[CaptLouAlbano]

A little story a major music producer once told me:

He was put over the production of a new up and coming acapella group that had already started recording. Something was wrong with the 1st song and nobody could find it. The man began to peel off the layers of the recording and finally got down to the very first tract; it was out of tune. The first tract had ruined the whole song.

He told me that this was the "dog poop" theory and he explained it this way:

Take a nice banana split dessert dish and set a banana in it.
Cut the banana in half and lay a piece of dog poop in the middle.
Next layer your banana with you favorite ice cream, chocolate, strawberry, vanilla.
Then add your favorite toppings: hot fudge, strawberry creme, etc.
Finally add a whopping amount of whipped cream and a cherry on top.
Take a big bite and what have you got?

Dog poop.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not realism; it's

DOG POOP.

Doing what you believe in is one thing- calling people names and expounding insulting innuendoes to those who do not believe as you do and then complaining when they retaliate in the same way is not only non-productive and a team splitter, it is also

Dog Poop.

But many of us, the Pauls included, did not see this as an issue of the lesser of two evils. We felt that the quote used by Ron Paul in his endorsement summed up the candidate well: "Ken Cuccinelli has been the most pro-liberty legislator and Attorney General we have ever had in Virginia. He is the only one who has consistently worked with the Liberty movement and the only one who has the guts to stand up to Washington". Paul also stated, "Ken Cuccinelli has always stood for smaller government and limited government, he has consistently and unapologetically worked with the Liberty movement in Virginia. His stand against ObamaCare shows he is willing to stand up to Washington's continued abuses on our individual liberties. I am proud to endorse to Ken for Governor of Virginia."

For that reason and others, he was not the lesser of two evils, but was far superior to his opponent and potentially a major ally.

[pcosmar]

But you can be idealistic and wait around for the second coming of Ron Paul, .

It is not the second coming of Ron Paul that I hope for.

But I am not going to support every Fascist that has an "R" behind his name..

And as bad as the "D"s are... we are still avoiding the World War that both McCain and Romney were promising.

Oh,, and don't forget,, it was the fucking Abortion Issue that ended up selling Obamacare.. (Romney care):(

[CaptLouAlbano]

It is not the second coming of Ron Paul that I hope for.

But I am not going to support every Fascist that has an "R" behind his name..

So are you suggesting that Paul endorsed and campaigned for a fascist? Does this mean he then endorses and supports fascism?

[AuH20]

Reality Sucks..

And electing a dangerous madman will not help it any.
Ken Cuccinelli is dangerous.

You can't be serious. Given all that's going on and you have your eye on Ken Cuccinelli?

[pcosmar]

So are you suggesting that Paul endorsed and campaigned for a fascist? Does this mean he then endorses and supports fascism?

I suggest that Ron was coerced into supporting a man he knew little about.

I would prefer to think that ,rather than thinking he had lied to me.
I am highly disappointed with his endorsement.

[pcosmar]

You can't be serious. Given all that's going on and you have your eye on Ken Cuccinelli?

I have my eye on many things.. and the 2nd amendment is my "Hot Button" issue.
I do not compromise on it,, and do not like double talk.

The man wants to use "mental health" to deny guns. He has turned over medical records to NCIS background checks,, (which he supports)

He is a huge supporter of the Mind Control Industry.

THAT IS DANGEROUS.

[AuH20]

But many of us, the Pauls included, did not see this as an issue of the lesser of two evils. We felt that the quote used by Ron Paul in his endorsement summed up the candidate well: "Ken Cuccinelli has been the most pro-liberty legislator and Attorney General we have ever had in Virginia. He is the only one who has consistently worked with the Liberty movement and the only one who has the guts to stand up to Washington". Paul also stated, "Ken Cuccinelli has always stood for smaller government and limited government, he has consistently and unapologetically worked with the Liberty movement in Virginia. His stand against ObamaCare shows he is willing to stand up to Washington's continued abuses on our individual liberties. I am proud to endorse to Ken for Governor of Virginia."

For that reason and others, he was not the lesser of two evils, but was far superior to his opponent and potentially a major ally.

That's really the crux of the issue. The pros FAR FAR outweigh the cons. There was no such thing as a lesser evil vote in this case. Cuccinelli was endorsed by the GOA, which is an extremely difficult endorsement to obtain.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I suggest that Ron was coerced into supporting a man he knew little about.

I would prefer to think that ,rather than thinking he had lied to me.
I am highly disappointed with his endorsement.

Really? You do realize that Ron endorsed him before don't you? Again, quoting from Ron's endorsement letter: "I have endorsed you in your past elections and I am proud to do so again. I feel you are the right choice for governor."

He didn't lie to you at all, from his own words Ron supported Cuccinelli, and rather enthusiastically so. It was not only an endorsement letter, but Ron took time out of his schedule to fly to VA and campaign for Cuccinelli. Was he coerced into doing that as well? Did someone hold a gun to his head, force him onto a plane, and then give him a speech to read?

Perhaps reality is a better place for you on this. The reality is that the man that you enthusiastically supported for president in 08 and 12. The man on who's forum you have posted 31,000 times - that man feels that Cuccinelli is not a fascist, he is not the lesser of two evils - but that he is a damn good man who should have been governor.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Cuccinelli was endorsed by the GOA, which is an extremely difficult endorsement to obtain.

Very true. Unlike the NRA, which endorses a candidate in nearly every race, GOA is highly selective.

[AuH20]

Really? You do realize that Ron endorsed him before don't you? Again, quoting from Ron's endorsement letter: "I have endorsed you in your past elections and I am proud to do so again. I feel you are the right choice for governor."

He didn't lie to you at all, from his own words Ron supported Cuccinelli, and rather enthusiastically so. It was not only an endorsement letter, but Ron took time out of his schedule to fly to VA and campaign for Cuccinelli. Was he coerced into doing that as well? Did someone hold a gun to his head, force him onto a plane, and then give him a speech to read?

Perhaps reality is a better place for you on this. The reality is that the man that you enthusiastically supported for president in 08 and 12. The man on who's forum you have posted 31,000 times - that man feels that Cuccinelli is not a fascist, he is not the lesser of two evils - but that he is a damn good man who should have been governor.

Anyone who the Chamber of Commerce criticizes has credibility in my eyes. Ron knows the deal. Why do you think that that post-election, he stated that Big Business and the MIC got the candidate in McAuliffe they wanted? It was all but obvious to those not living in their little bubble.

[pcosmar]

Really? .

Yes really. I spoke to Ron here in Michigan..He supported Gun ownership.
Supported Disbanding the ATF and supported Restoration of Rights.

He does not support (to my knowledge) Mental Health screenings for ownership.. Or he didn't..

perhaps that has changed,, because he endorsed a man who does. :(

[69360]

And you are part of why nothing will change in this country until it completely falls apart, and is forced to put it's self back together. Your kind makes me physically ill.

With your absolutist attitude you will get nothing you want politically, because 3rd party candidates don't win.

People who are willing to compromise a bit, do achieve political goals.

Would you rather have most of what you want or sit on your high horse and get none of what you want?


Yes really. I spoke to Ron here in Michigan..He supported Gun ownership.
Supported Disbanding the ATF and supported Restoration of Rights.

He does not support (to my knowledge) Mental Health screenings for ownership.. Or he didn't..

perhaps that has changed,, because he endorsed a man who does. :(

It hasn't changed. He's just not an absolutist. He endorsed somebody who is mostly good. That's how things get done.

[SilentBull]

So should we assume you voted for Romney then? Romney had a chance to win... Gary Johnson had none... Ron Paul had none.

Romney winning wouldn't have helped Rand Paul. Ken winning would have. You can't see the difference?

[cjm]

I have my eye on many things.. and the 2nd amendment is my "Hot Button" issue.
I do not compromise on it,, and do not like double talk.

You mentioned that you did not approve of Cuccinelli in part because he is opposed to constitutional carry. But you live in Michigan which is not a constitutional carry state. That's a form of compromise. You may be working towards constitutional carry there, and I applaud that. But in the meantime, you tolerate the Michigan gun laws as they are. There are undoubtedly benefits to living in Michigan that allow you to compromise on this issue. The fact that you still live there tells me that the benefits outweigh the harm in your world view.

Cuccinelli's benefits outweighed the harm in my view. It was a compromise, but a principled compromise that would have advanced liberty in Virginia. Jumping from "he has turned over medical records to NCIS background checks" to "he is a huge supporter of the Mind Control Industry" is dishonest though. Feel free to criticize him but please don't go down McAuliffe Road.

[pcosmar]

You mentioned that you did not approve of Cuccinelli in part because he is opposed to constitutional carry. .

No,, actually,, I said I favored Sarvis because of his position on Constitutional Carry and on Restoration of Rights.

That was in one of the first of Oh So Many threads on this subject.

And it was a quick look at 2 people I had never even heard of prior to the thread. I took a quick look at both of their stated positions.


Jumping from "he has turned over medical records to NCIS background checks" to "he is a huge supporter of the Mind Control Industry" is dishonest though. Feel free to criticize him but please don't go down McAuliffe Road.

No it is not,,because after the initial reaction and comment I went looking a bit deeper.
Cuccinelli has a history of support for and advocacy of the Mind Control Industry.. and has openly made statements that he wishes to prevent anyone with "Mental issues" (whatever that means) from owning guns.

That makes "Mental Health" the criteria,,, rather than the Constitution.

It is back door Gun Control.

[Keith and stuff]

In theory, yes. If you lose an election, it's because you failed to convince the voters, so yes, in theory, you deserved to lose. Nevertheless, I believe Ken would make a better governor than the guy that won.

[Cap]

A little story a major music producer once told me:

He was put over the production of a new up and coming acapella group that had already started recording. Something was wrong with the 1st song and nobody could find it. The man began to peel off the layers of the recording and finally got down to the very first tract; it was out of tune. The first tract had ruined the whole song.

He told me that this was the "dog poop" theory and he explained it this way:

Take a nice banana split dessert dish and set a banana in it.
Cut the banana in half and lay a piece of dog poop in the middle.
Next layer your banana with your favorite ice cream, chocolate, strawberry, vanilla.
Then add your favorite toppings: hot fudge, strawberry creme, etc.
Finally add a whopping amount of whipped cream and a cherry on top.
Take a big bite and what have you got?

Dog poop.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not realism; it's

DOG POOP.

Doing what you believe in is one thing- calling people names and expounding insulting innuendoes to those who do not believe as you do and then complaining when they retaliate in the same way is not only non-productive and a team splitter, it is also

Dog Poop.

Instead of the purger's cabal, DOG POOP Cabal has a better ring to it. I like it.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Whatever the exit polls showed, they weren't available before the election happened.

The reason the Dems were funding Sarvis was definitely because they intended to get people who would otherwise have voted for Cuccinelli to vote for him. This is an old trick of theirs. It's not some new crazy theory that people just came up with for this race.

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/11/02/news/local/doc4cce3b8551b74712212971.txt
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101028/NEWS02/310280073/

I don't like the vote stealing argument either. Nobody's entitled to anyone's vote. But call a spade a spade.

If I remember, Knott denounced it, rather than reveling in it like Sarvis's supporters, and mocking the Republicans for pointing out the obvious.

Before the election:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/10/28/poll_libertarian_candidate_hurting_dem_in_virginia _gop_still_losing.html

[erowe1]

Before the election:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/10/28/poll_libertarian_candidate_hurting_dem_in_virginia _gop_still_losing.html

And when did the big Democrat donor make his donation?

[cjm]

No,, actually,, I said I favored Sarvis because of his position on Constitutional Carry and on Restoration of Rights.

That was in one of the first of Oh So Many threads on this subject.

I went back and checked. You are right. I'm sorry for mischaracterizing your position on this point.

[AgentOrange]

Useless bickering. Myself, I vote for the candidate I believe to be best....regardless of that candidates chances of winning. I am amazed that people are so into voting for a "winner", acting like they are cheering on their favorite sports team, instead of just voting for the best candidate. The best candidate for me, is almost always a 3rd party candidate....when there is only a democrat or republican candidate running, then I will vote for one of those. But honestly, voting Democrat or Republican usually feels like more of a "wasted" vote, then voting for a 3rd party candidate. I know that in the vast majority of cases, the Democrat or Republican candidate will vote the status quo, regardless of any promises they make, at least with the 3rd party candidate, I can have hope that they may be sincere about making real changes. Instead of criticizing people for not voting for a candidate that is supposedly "more likely to win", work on developing a better candidate to attract those voters.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Useless bickering. Myself, I vote for the candidate I believe to be best....regardless of that candidates chances of winning. I am amazed that people are so into voting for a "winner", acting like they are cheering on their favorite sports team, instead of just voting for the best candidate. The best candidate for me, is almost always a 3rd party candidate....when there is only a democrat or republican candidate running, then I will vote for one of those. But honestly, voting Democrat or Republican usually feels like more of a "wasted" vote, then voting for a 3rd party candidate. I know that in the vast majority of cases, the Democrat or Republican candidate will vote the status quo, regardless of any promises they make, at least with the 3rd party candidate, I can have hope that they may be sincere about making real changes. Instead of criticizing people for not voting for a candidate that is supposedly "more likely to win", work on developing a better candidate to attract those voters.

I determine the "best candidate" based not only on their stances, but their ability to do what it takes to have a realistic shot at winning (ie. experience, fundraising, grassroots, etc). Those factors are what warrants whether or not I will support a candidate with my money and my time.

Truthfully, if you want to vote for someone regardless of their chances of winning, then why not write you own name in every time? Can't find someone you agree with more than yourself.

[cjm]

Useless bickering. Myself, I vote for the candidate I believe to be best....regardless of that candidates chances of winning. I am amazed that people are so into voting for a "winner", acting like they are cheering on their favorite sports team, instead of just voting for the best candidate.

The best candidate? What you are saying is you choose the candidate that best matches your views and you call that the best candidate. What others are saying is that we look at which candidate best matches our views but also take into account their ability to win the election. We're simply considering more data when deciding which is the best candidate, not "voting for a winner." Here's my take from another thread, feel free to dismiss me as another GOP party hack:


I have stated on other threads that both Cuccinelli and Sarvis would advance liberty even if only incrementally. They are both flawed candidates, but both acceptable. I will support the candidate that has the best chance of winning while meeting minimum acceptable standards. If Sarvis' and Cuccinelli's percentages were reversed, I would be supporting Sarvis. If I found Cuccinelli unacceptable, I would be supporting Sarvis. But I have found Cuccinelli to be an acceptable candidate (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431950-libertarian-Virginians-should-vote-for-Cuccinelli) and he's within reach. So I'm going with Ken.

[Ender]

I determine the "best candidate" based not only on their stances, but their ability to do what it takes to have a realistic shot at winning (ie. experience, fundraising, grassroots, etc). Those factors are what warrants whether or not I will support a candidate with my money and my time.

Truthfully, if you want to vote for someone regardless of their chances of winning, then why not write you own name in every time? Can't find someone you agree with more than yourself.

No, what you have done is bought into the system.

The 2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics. Your "best candidate" has already been chosen for you and you are happily cooperating.

In reality, what needs to be done is people joining together and changing the system; standing together and saying "HELL NO!"

[CaptLouAlbano]

No, what you have done is bought into the system.

The 2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics. Your "best candidate" has already been chosen for you and you are happily cooperating.

In reality, what needs to be done is people joining together and changing the system; standing together and saying "HELL NO!"

Total bullshit. Cuccinelli was not an establishment candidate, but instead was put forth by the grassroots and secured the nomination at the VA State Convention because he had the support of the people. The establishment's hand picked candidate withdrew because he did not have the support.

And furthermore if the "2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics", then perhaps you can explain how Massie, Amash, Rand, Sanford and their allies in Congress all won their seats, since none of them were the establishment's hand picked candidates.

The reality is that we are standing together and saying "Hell No" each and every primary season when grassroots candidates defeat the establishment candidates. Does it happen all the time? Of course not, but it is happening more and more and that is how change will come to the political landscape.

[cjm]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptLouAlbano again.

[Ender]

Total bullshit. Cuccinelli was not an establishment candidate, but instead was put forth by the grassroots and secured the nomination at the VA State Convention because he had the support of the people. The establishment's hand picked candidate withdrew because he did not have the support.

And furthermore if the "2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics", then perhaps you can explain how Massie, Amash, Rand, Sanford and their allies in Congress all won their seats, since none of them were the establishment's hand picked candidates.

The reality is that we are standing together and saying "Hell No" each and every primary season when grassroots candidates defeat the establishment candidates. Does it happen all the time? Of course not, but it is happening more and more and that is how change will come to the political landscape.

I do not see YOU standing with anyone that does not spout the party line. Anyone that opposes you is not treated to fair dialog and an interesting learned discussion, but instead subjected to name-calling and insults.

When YOU can actually carry on polite conversations about candidates, then i will begin to believe that you are a liberty-minded poster. Until then you seem only the typical neocon, ready to bash anyone who does not agree with your status quo marketing.

[69360]

No, what you have done is bought into the system.

The 2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics. Your "best candidate" has already been chosen for you and you are happily cooperating.

In reality, what needs to be done is people joining together and changing the system; standing together and saying "HELL NO!"

Easier said than done. Present a viable other party first. Until then people who want to make a difference will work with what we have.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I do not see YOU standing with anyone that does not spout the party line. Anyone that opposes you is not treated to fair dialog and an interesting learned discussion, but instead subjected to name-calling and insults.

When YOU can actually carry on polite conversations about candidates, then i will begin to believe that you are a liberty-minded poster. Until then you seem only the typical neocon, ready to bash anyone who does not agree with your status quo marketing.

So, you resort to ad hominem attacks, when the facts don't jive with your line of bullshit?

Answer the question. If the "2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics", then perhaps you can explain how Massie, Amash, Rand, Sanford and their allies in Congress all won their seats, since none of them were the establishment's hand picked candidates.

Or maybe you cannot answer it because it fucks up your little world view and you'd have to come to the realization that you are wrong.

[phill4paul]

moveon.arghhhhh.

[Ender]

So, you resort to ad hominem attacks, when the facts don't jive with your line of bullshit?

Answer the question. If the "2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics", then perhaps you can explain how Massie, Amash, Rand, Sanford and their allies in Congress all won their seats, since none of them were the establishment's hand picked candidates.

Or maybe you cannot answer it because it fucks up your little world view and you'd have to come to the realization that you are wrong.

Ron Paul:
The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems.


Article by Harry Browne about overcoming the 2 party system. He is speaking primarily about the LP but it can apply to any party.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/11/harry-browne/the-libertarian-vote-total/



Harry Browne:

America has a 2-party system, but not because of popular demand.

The Democrats and Republicans have legislated third parties into irrelevance — using five principal methods: donation limits, reporting laws, campaign subsidies, the Debate Commission, and ballot-access laws.

To give you just two examples of the impact of these hurdles:

• In 2000, the presidential campaign raised $2.6 million, but $250,000 of that had to be diverted into ballot-access drives in just two states: Pennsylvania and Arizona. That's money that could have gone into advertising, but instead was of no value in campaign outreach.

• In my home state of Tennessee, Republicans and Democrats are listed on the ballot with their party labels. But candidates of any other parties must be listed as "Independent." Thus anyone entering the polling booth determined to vote against the two major parties must know already which third-party candidate to vote for. If he doesn't, he'll be afraid to choose among the "Independents," not knowing which of them might be a Nazi or a Communist.

These are just two examples of the legislative barriers placed in the way of third parties. To list all the various hurdles would fill a good-sized book.



C.S. Lewis:
I feel a strong desire to tell you — and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me — which of these two errors is the worse [becoming an individualist or becoming a totalitarian]. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs — pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern that that with either of them.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Ron Paul:
The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems.

And yet, since Ron spoke those words, every single candidate that he has endorsed and campaigned for has been in the Republican party. So much for rejecting the system.

As far as Browne, he was good on economics, but sucked when it came to political strategy.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Speaking mathematically - it's kinda/sorta half as bad as communism.

In communism you have one party that conducts a primary/caucus at the local level, then at the next level up and so forth.

I don't quite remember the exact quote, but Jesse Ventura said something along the lines of: "The U.S. is better than Russia because it has one more party."