• 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.

Sarvis is running for US Senator

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Because it was so much fun handing the win to McAuliffe, I guess he decided it was worth doing all over again to hand the Senate seat to the Democrat as well.

Thanks.

TFred

Your premise is false TFred. Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...irginia-senate-race-spoiler-for-ed-gillespie/

Gillespie is the ultimate neocon. If he gets the Republican nomination the level of negative campaigning will make the recent gubernatorial race look clean.

You can blame the Libertarians if you want for the republican losses, but at some point you have to ask: Why do republicans continue to loose at the statewide level in Virginia? Answer: It can't all be the fault of Libertarians, they didn't even have a candidate for LT Gov or Attorney General!
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I couldn't care less what WaPo says. I'm not stupid.

ETA: I'm not claiming that Sarvis is solely to blame, but I do believe if he had not been in the race, it would have turned out differently.

TFred
 
Last edited:

Gallowmere

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
210
Location
Richmond, VA
I couldn't care less what WaPo says. I'm not stupid.

ETA: I'm not claiming that Sarvis is solely to blame, but I do believe if he had not been in the race, it would have turned out differently.

TFred

Believe what you like, but most that I have spoken with who vote Libertarian have no quarrel with letting people know that they wouldn't vote at all if a Libertarian weren't on the ballot. "Lesser of two evils" means nothing to me (nor them, apparently).

That being said, the first problem that Libertarians face is the age old two party propaganda about taking votes away from one of the two party candidates. It does however, lead me to wonder something. Why is it always the GOP that cries about such things? The second problem is the old "I'd vote for him, but he'll never win" crap that members of the two major voting blocs tend to believe. As Gary Johnson said during the last presidential election "If everyone worried about wasting their vote wasted it on me, then I would be the next president of the United States."
 

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Truth is

He couldn't win an election for dog catcher. Senator??? LOL Yeah, right.

Who is funding him this time? Seems I heard last time it was a Democrat. I'm sure they did that so he could take votes from TMac, right?

Sarvis is a non-issue.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Big surprise, it took the GOP apologists a grand total of one post to start the long whine about how their party, now well into its death throes, is incapable of fielding an electable candidate.

Nothing new here. :lol:
 

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Let me guess

Big surprise, it took the GOP apologists a grand total of one post to start the long whine about how their party, now well into its death throes, is incapable of fielding an electable candidate.

Nothing new here. :lol:

Your source for the "death throes" idea came from Idiot Joe, right? Sounds like the fool that can't win a nomination from his own party for president time after time.

Congratulations.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA

Actually that election day demagogic smear was pure McCarthyism directed at the only pro gun rights candidate in the race.

I do not want to go back down the road that has created so much disunity and anger on this board in the past. I really do seek an intellectual discussion about the merits of each candidate based upon their support of open carry and gun rights in general.

I do not know how to convey to the haters of Libertarians here the irony of their attacks on the most pro gun party in Virginia. The Libertarian Party of Virginia will compete in the Senate race and in many congressional races in November. You cannot change that. You cannot wish us away or bash us away, and you pretend we do not matter at the peril of our gun rights and our liberty in general. If you believe in gun rights, Libertarians are not the bad guys.

Even if you get some sort of twisted pleasure out of bashing Libertarians, neocons should fear Senator Warner. He is what most Virginians would call pro gun. He did vote against Obamas magazine ban and has the good sense to list himself as pro gun at the website On The Issues. Warner also has a massive campaign contribution war chest.
 

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Actually that election day demagogic smear was pure McCarthyism directed at the only pro gun rights candidate in the race.

I do not want to go back down the road that has created so much disunity and anger on this board in the past. I really do seek an intellectual discussion about the merits of each candidate based upon their support of open carry and gun rights in general.

I do not know how to convey to the haters of Libertarians here the irony of their attacks on the most pro gun party in Virginia. The Libertarian Party of Virginia will compete in the Senate race and in many congressional races in November. You cannot change that. You cannot wish us away or bash us away, and you pretend we do not matter at the peril of our gun rights and our liberty in general. If you believe in gun rights, Libertarians are not the bad guys.

Even if you get some sort of twisted pleasure out of bashing Libertarians, neocons should fear Senator Warner. He is what most Virginians would call pro gun. He did vote against Obamas magazine ban and has the good sense to list himself as pro gun at the website On The Issues. Warner also has a massive campaign contribution war chest.

I find it hard to believe that all those reports were wrong.

What you fail to comprehend is that I did not, and do not bash Libertarians.

I have not said anything against your beloved Libertarians. I simply stated the fact that Sarvis couldn't win an election even for dog catcher.

Run a candidate worth voting for and I will vote for them. Sarvis was just as worthless a vote as Cucchinelli was.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA

These sources are not independent stories, they are a repeat of the same non story. Understand that when you peel back the onion just one layer you realize that the decision to fund ballot access in Virginia came from Libertarians running a Libertarian PAC. Peel back the onion just a little bit more and you discover that the total sent by the Libertarian Pac was less than 11,500 dollars. Peel back the onion a little farther and you realize that the Libertarian PAC is from Texas where Ron Paul has completely destroyed the neat D v. R landscape and many people who label themselves D or R contribute to the Ls, even those who are active in Texas or national politics.

Now step back and view 1) the source of the claims, 2) the timing of the claims and 3) the overreaching nature of the claims 4) a lack of authors for the postings.

1) None of the sources are front line news organizations. They are all web based information (sometimes news) re-posters with a neocon bias.

2) The timing of the postings was clearly intended to confuse and place doubt in the minds of conservative voters. It is amazing how they all posted almost exactly the same thing early on election morning.

3) The over reaching claims made in the articles are not substantiated by any facts that the postings made. I would argue that it is not journalism at all, but to the degree that one believes that this could be labeled journalism, the label yellow journalism applies here.

4) The postings do not have the names of authors. This should be a red flag. If the author is not willing to put his or her name on the posting, then the integrity of the article must be called into question.


Here is a link to what the executive director of the Libertarian PAC said about the yellow journalism:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/07/libertarian-booster-pac-denies-supportin
 

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Unlike you,

OK, this is where our gun politics discussions should focus. What are your criteria for a candidate worth voting for?

I don't believe the Libertarians are any better than the Republicans. I also don't believe everybody else but Sarvis was lying about his funding. Funny how he never denied it. Yes, he said all the right things about "gun rights".

If a politician's lips are moving, THEY ARE LYING. All of them. Nobody is pure as driven snow and all owe somebody.

"If you like your....." is a prime example and just the most current. The next best lie I have heard is about "the death throes " of the Republican party. I support candidates that actually know what the 2nd Amendment is and that it has NOTHING to do with hunting.

That leaves Warner out. Sarvis is nothing more than Idiot Joe, John Anderson, Walter Mondale or Hubert Humphrey with a Libertarian label. A known name that always loses because he has no substance or usable experience.

No, I will not support him. I know better. This is America and it is your right to support whomsoever you choose.
 

Gallowmere

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
210
Location
Richmond, VA
I don't believe the Libertarians are any better than the Republicans. I also don't believe everybody else but Sarvis was lying about his funding. Funny how he never denied it. Yes, he said all the right things about "gun rights".

If a politician's lips are moving, THEY ARE LYING. All of them. Nobody is pure as driven snow and all owe somebody.

"If you like your....." is a prime example and just the most current. The next best lie I have heard is about "the death throes " of the Republican party. I support candidates that actually know what the 2nd Amendment is and that it has NOTHING to do with hunting.

That leaves Warner out. Sarvis is nothing more than Idiot Joe, John Anderson, Walter Mondale or Hubert Humphrey with a Libertarian label. A known name that always loses because he has no substance or usable experience.

No, I will not support him. I know better. This is America and it is your right to support whomsoever you choose.

I have to concur with pretty much all of this. To be honest, Gary Johnson is probably one of the better options that I have seen the party push, BUT he was shooting too high when going for the presidency. Unfortunately, we have a population that is not going to be very warm and welcoming to a third party at that level yet. Granted, it's been getting better, but when you put up someone like Sarvis...jesus man, I know card carrying Libertarians who wouldn't vote for him. He just reeks of muppet. As tazdad said, everyone owes someone, and unless one is truly a politician that comes with no hidden agenda (good luck with that one), they need to at least be good at hiding the hand stuffed up their muppet ass.

I considered running for office once, but even the fringe loonies call me a fringe loony, so that wouldn't work out so well. Honesty would get me shot down before the primaries even got started.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Your source for the "death throes" idea came from Idiot Joe, right? Sounds like the fool that can't win a nomination from his own party for president time after time.

Congratulations.

Who in god's name is "idiot Joe"?

I haven't listened to the opinion of a politician in, I dunno, decades.

My source comes from my own two eyes, friend. I have two words for you: "Ken Cuccinelli".
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I don't believe the Libertarians are any better than the Republicans. I also don't believe everybody else but Sarvis was lying about his funding. Funny how he never denied it. Yes, he said all the right things about "gun rights".

If a politician's lips are moving, THEY ARE LYING. All of them. Nobody is pure as driven snow and all owe somebody.

"If you like your....." is a prime example and just the most current. The next best lie I have heard is about "the death throes " of the Republican party. I support candidates that actually know what the 2nd Amendment is and that it has NOTHING to do with hunting.

That leaves Warner out. Sarvis is nothing more than Idiot Joe, John Anderson, Walter Mondale or Hubert Humphrey with a Libertarian label. A known name that always loses because he has no substance or usable experience.

No, I will not support him. I know better. This is America and it is your right to support whomsoever you choose.

I missed the part of this where you said anything substantive, or new, or interesting, or even really contributory.

Just to be clear, did you vote Republican in the last election? If you cast even a single Republican vote in the last election, I'm sorry to say that this entire post is only so much hot air.

What's your solution?
 
Last edited:
Top