Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Is Sarvis a Libertarian in name only. You be the judge:

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/vir ... rian-name/

My Rundown of Sarivs' positions on the subjects that actually matter in real life:

Tax policy: Does not favor cutting taxes.
Government: Wants to find savings through "efficiency" without giving specifics. Incidentally, McAuliffe stated the same exact thing in the last debate.
Medicaid: "Endorsed expanding the Medicaid program in the state under Obamacare" - What free-market argument is there for expanding Medicaid?
Economics (And going to GMU): “I’m not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics, I like more mainstream economics and would have been happy to go elsewhere.” Name a principled libertarian that endorses mainstream (read Keynesian) Economics?
Transportation Taxes: Wants Higher Transportation taxes, and is open to higher gas taxes and instituting a vehicle-miles driven tax in the state (VMT). A VMT generally requires a government GPS to be installed in your car to track your miles driven.

Now, how many of us want a government GPS in our car tracking each mile that we've driven? I surely don't.

Vote for the true man of principle this election. Vote for Ken Cuccinelli.

If true, he is a fraud.

GO COOCH!

Stepmom was gonna vote for mcfraud till i showed her bloomfake was backing him! Screw the others.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I suggest that the curious go to
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues

and see his stance on the issues for themselves rather than let someone else do their thinking for them. If something is not directly addressed on the page, then email and ask. He actually does respond.

GPS? Lol. Grab your tinfoil, Poindexter!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You can also hear his own words and draw your own conclusions as the only candidate forum with all three gubernatorial candidates gets live streamed today between noon - 2pm.

https://www.facebook.com/events/230401997123279/?ref=22

NovaHunter wrote:Is Sarvis a Libertarian in name only. You be the judge:

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/vir ... rian-name/

My Rundown of Sarivs' positions on the subjects that actually matter in real life:

Tax policy: Does not favor cutting taxes.
Government: Wants to find savings through "efficiency" without giving specifics. Incidentally, McAuliffe stated the same exact thing in the last debate.
Medicaid: "Endorsed expanding the Medicaid program in the state under Obamacare" - What free-market argument is there for expanding Medicaid?
Economics (And going to GMU): “I’m not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics, I like more mainstream economics and would have been happy to go elsewhere.” Name a principled libertarian that endorses mainstream (read Keynesian) Economics?
Transportation Taxes: Wants Higher Transportation taxes, and is open to higher gas taxes and instituting a vehicle-miles driven tax in the state (VMT). A VMT generally requires a government GPS to be installed in your car to track your miles driven.

Now, how many of us want a government GPS in our car tracking each mile that we've driven? I surely don't.

Vote for the true man of principle this election. Vote for Ken Cuccinelli.

That certainly dims the halo and turns the volume down on the celestial choir a bit.

SpanishInquisition wrote:I suggest that the curious go to
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues

and see his stance on the issues for themselves rather than let someone else do their thinking for them. If something is not directly addressed on the page, then email and ask. He actually does respond.

GPS? Lol. Grab your tinfoil, Poindexter!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Your sanctimony while insulting those who disagree expresses what must be an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

Sarvis's petulant whine of a press release after the last debate is another demonstration of why he isn't ready to play in the big leagues.

Insult? The assumption that you can make your own analysis is an insult?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yep, making up ones own mind is important.

Having complete information on a candidate is also important in my opinion.

Only in Virginia would the Libertarian candidate for Governor endorse Medicaid expansion and last year's transportation tax package and express a willingness to consider further tax increases but prove unwilling to identify any budgetary significant programs that should be rolled back.

If this new definition wins broad enough acceptance, perhaps someday we can go back and label the late Nelson Rockefeller as part of the libertarian vanguard?

NovaHunter wrote: Only in Virginia would the Libertarian candidate for Governor endorse Medicaid expansion and last year's transportation tax package and express a willingness to consider further tax increases but prove unwilling to identify any budgetary significant programs that should be rolled back.

Except that's not the case as the man said in his own words yet again in today's candidate forum. And in case you missed that, you can watch this 5 minute video that the OP article sourced where Sarvis said instead of just expanding Medicaid like many other states are doing, he would like to see more state policy freedom in how that program is run and how that money is spent before we open up the floodgates. On taxes Sarvis says that both Democrats and Republicans have their playbooks, with Democrats saying what programs they want to spend money on and Republicans just saying "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" without actually coming up with how they'll achieve that. The video notes that Virginia is already a low tax state so the "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" mantra just doesn't cut it and Sarvis believes that if we're going to further reduce state spending (which ultimately leads to lower taxes) we need to look at it from a priority spending perspective.

How the article comes to a different conclusion is beyond me, other than it's a last ditch play to get Sarvis supporters to back KC instead. But don't take my word for it; watch the video yourself.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/daily-rundow ... 3#53145353

So are members of the forum voting for Sarvis? We're arguing for and against a candidate that cannot win and if enough of us vote for him we are going to gift wrap a victory to Terry.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yeah, yeah, a vote for Sarvis is a vote for McAwful. We've been down that road and it dead ends. The people here who will cast a vote for Sarvis will, I hope, be voting for the candidate they think is best suited to run the state for the next four years. Just the same as those who will vote for Cuccinelli. One of the big reasons Sarvis isn't a viable candidate is the entrenched two-party system. R's pull the red levers and D's pull the blue levers. Twas ever thus. I'll be glad when it's November 6th and this is all over. Then we'll at least have an idea of our fate. Just make sure you get out and vote.

A vote for Sarvis is a vote for Bloomturd gun control in Virginia.

Don't kid yourselves.

While I do believe its better to vote for Cooch instead of Sarvis, I do believe this thread speaks to the validity of the aversions of the present thread:

http://vagunforum.net/politics/wacko-bi ... 19891.html

Whether he is or not, you have to back it up with reasoned thought supported by actual data, otherwise, you are guilty of the same as the thread above.

Sarvis' lack of experience combined with the Democrap planned and pushed outcome PLUS polls now indicating Sarvis holding onto 10% of the vote.

No reason to vote for a loser if it enables bloomturd democrats to take the State.

Everyone needs to measure the cost of backing an unknown you think agrees with you 100% with a known who agrees with you 90%, can win, and will resist progressives....

It's a no brainer.

Too bad the obamatons believe what the lame stream media feed them; that the Tea Party is a terrorist orginization....

They like that wholesome occupy movement so much better!

...and the sane appear to be insane.

I'm beginning to think that we will never find an issue or opinion that people are not about 50/50 on. I bet if we asked if the world was round or flat, we'd have about 50/50, and after standard deviation, there'd be no difference.

ratherfish wrote:
Everyone needs to measure the cost of backing an unknown you think agrees with you 100% with a known who agrees with you 90%, can win, and will resist progressives....

It's a no brainer.

Agree 100%. Would runoff elections help? On one hand, we could vote for who we actually want without knowingly throwing our vote away. On the other hand, a third party vote would carry less weight since the RNC and DNC knows they'll get the vote anyway.

^^^ it would most definitely help. no longer would people be able to make the argument "this candidate has too low support to win, so support us now and avoid the possibility of something worse" because you could support the candidate later, if it goes the way they say.