• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Virginia’s gun owners have a stark choice for governor

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
The only reasons he is running as a Libertarian are

Good points. But, I'm finding Sarvis ain't all that much a libertarian, neither.

1. He couldn't run as a Republican.

2. Nobody else was dumb enough to run for them.

3. He is just seeking "name recognition" for his next run for an/any office.

Sarvis is not now, nor has he ever been a Libertarian. Unfortunately, he might pull enough votes to totally screw Virginia by helping McAuliffe win.

Virginia is screwed.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
I was just thinking, and some may say that is dangerous, but I was just pondering if someone who had a lot of money(Bloomberg) would finance a third party candidate to run knowing that a third party candidate would siphon votes away from the Cooch and practically ensure a victory for McAuliffe? I guess tomorrow after Terry is elected, he can return the favor to Bloomberg by regulating guns like the do in New York and we all know how well that turned out for the citizens there.


You can only siphon those votes that would otherwise have gone to him.

Some seem unwilling to comprehend that there are those of us who would write in Felix the Cat rather than vote for one of the two atrocious major-party candidates.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
The fourth choice, a vote for Sarvis, has a low probability of siccing a politician on anyone, plus it helps further the goal of getting alternate views into the mainstream of political discourse, by helping to establish the LP as a "bonafide" political party.

Now, in some ways that may still be a defensive vote (there's something to be said for not siccing anybody – including the libertarian – on your neighbors), but I don't feel it's wholly abandoning principle either.

Just a thought. :)

If the Libertarian party wants to be a "bonafide" party with a chance of winning elections they need to actually attempt to win one.
I've never seen a libertarian candidate run a commercial, put up a yard sign, gotten a call from a libertarian volunteer...... etc etc etc.
it's like Ron paul raised more money then any other republican in '08 and he never used any of that money.

the libertarian party will never win an election because they simply don't want to do what's nessecary to win.

even if they did they'd have to water down their platform to win since they believe an ideology held by so few people that they can't get enough votes unless they're in a skewed district, and the people who run the LP know that...
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
but did you show your ID to the mailbox? how do we know you're not an ACORN hired illegal immigrant from somalia trying to skew our elections? where is your photo ID to vote sir?

I can prove I'm not ACORN. I don't have an ID to show :lol:
 

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
Used my clothes pin today

Voted this morning. Held my nose as usual. Used my CHP (sorry Peter) as ID for the last time, since photo ID will be required from here out. Now hearing that Sarvis candidacy was bankrolled by an Obama fund bundler from Texas. I am not sure if he is a dupe or a plant. Turnout is low. Citizen, when THEY make the rules, THEY expect them to apply to all of us THEY see as lowly serfs. Non consent will not stop THEM from expecting to be able to enforce THEIR rules on us. Keep your powder dry!
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Voted this morning. Held my nose as usual. Used my CHP (sorry Peter) as ID for the last time, since photo ID will be required from here out. Now hearing that Sarvis candidacy was bankrolled by an Obama fund bundler from Texas. I am not sure if he is a dupe or a plant. Turnout is low. Citizen, when THEY make the rules, THEY expect them to apply to all of us THEY see as lowly serfs. Non consent will not stop THEM from expecting to be able to enforce THEIR rules on us. Keep your powder dry!

Please cite the source of this information.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Voted this morning. Held my nose as usual. Used my CHP (sorry Peter) as ID for the last time, since photo ID will be required from here out. !

Maybe Photo ID Carry Permits's will be the big success legislation under the new dictatorship :banana:

Be bettern slingshot preemption :lol:
 
Last edited:

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
A mole, a red herring, a shill? Don't see any evidence of any that, but he could not help McAuliffe more if he were - the effect is the same. :(

Well asked -- honestly, I withheld my opinion of Sarvis until the very end, but The Blaze seems to out the truth, and truth matters to me -- and to you too, I think. As posted elsewhere of course (including the newest VA-ALERT):

Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race by Meredith Jessup Nov. 5, 2013
Campaign finance records show the Libertarian Booster PAC has made the largest independent contribution to Sarvis’ campaign, helping to pay for professional petition circulators who collected signatures necessary to get Sarvis’ name on Tuesday’s statewide ballot.

Austin, Texas, software billionaire Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC’s major benefactor. He’s also a top bundler for President Barack Obama. This revelation comes as Virginia voters head to the polls Tuesday in an election where some observers say the third-party gubernatorial candidate could be a spoiler for Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

Poseur maybe?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Well asked -- honestly, I withheld my opinion of Sarvis until the very end, but The Blaze seems to out the truth, and truth matters to me -- and to you too, I think. As posted elsewhere of course (including the newest VA-ALERT):

Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race by Meredith Jessup Nov. 5, 2013


Poseur maybe?

In a mirror test, the image is the same - foggy but clear.

The Libertarians have been the spoiler and have now had their image tarnished by accepting funds from the enemy.

People really need to stop voting on what they want someone to be and vote for what they ARE.

BTW - I see from the T/D reports on voter turnout that the conservative precincts are experiencing higher than predicted numbers - the more liberal precincts not to much. The fat lady has not sung yet - think it will be a long, long night.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
If the Libertarian party wants to be a "bonafide" party with a chance of winning elections they need to actually attempt to win one.
I've never seen a libertarian candidate run a commercial, put up a yard sign, gotten a call from a libertarian volunteer...... etc etc etc.
it's like Ron paul raised more money then any other republican in '08 and he never used any of that money.

the libertarian party will never win an election because they simply don't want to do what's nessecary to win.

even if they did they'd have to water down their platform to win since they believe an ideology held by so few people that they can't get enough votes unless they're in a skewed district, and the people who run the LP know that...

There are yard signs all over Blacksburg. I have one myself, but it's a little out of the way.

"Watering down their platform to win" is missing the point, in a lot of ways.

A pure libertarian platform isn't immediately practicable. Too much reform is dependent on too much other reform, all of which would be impossible to achieve at once. For example, pure libertarian tax reform is virtually impossible without "watered-down" tax reform first (of the sort Sarvis supports), simply because folks are too used to the spending which follows heavy taxation. People need to see the benefit in small bites before they'll eat the whole burrito.

A practicable platform for a libertarian candidate must necessarily rather different from a philosophical or ideal one. Most of us agree that there's no way to "get there from here" using the political process directly, that we need to achieve some sort of social "revolution". Some of us feel that, while the political process will not achieve libertarian reform without such a revolution, by implementing shadows or fragments of that platform we can show its potential success and thereby further that "social revolution" through indirect use of the political process.

As for the campaign contributions (not your post, EMN), big time yawn. I assume some folks imagine that nobody could prefer McAuliffe or Sarvis to Cuccinelli. Yet, I know folks who do, and I would not be surprised to see them donating to everyone but The Cooch.

Really, folks. This isn't a sign of Sarvis being a DP plant. It's a sign that The Cooch is such an eminently unelectable candidate (as I've been saying) that folks will donate to multiple candidates to see his defeat. Sarvis cannot control who donates to his campaign, or what their reasons might be. Every single third party candidate who has been accused of "splitting the vote" has received donations from individuals primarily supporting the candidate whom the third party candidate is presumed to be stealing votes from. No surprise.

I've pointed out before though that folks are mistaken this time around anyway; The Cooch never had my vote (or most of those with me) to begin with. I'd just as soon vote for McAuliffe as The Cooch, which means I'd just as soon not vote at all. That guy from Texas is wasting his money, because Sarvis is stealing as many votes from McAuliffe as from Cuccinelli. (As I've pointed out before, none of the Sarvis voters I know would vote for Cuccinelli, but a few might vote for McAuliffe.)
 
Last edited:
Top