VA GOP may strip McAuliffe of his protection detail

[Hokie5150]

You keep talking about making a statement - your opportunity to do that was in the primary process - yet you were so disengaged that you couldn't even get another name on the ballot.

You obviously still do not understand the statement being made. The statement being made by voting 3rd party is that one no longer supports the GOP or the DNC. That statement cannot be made by voting for some other candidate in the GOP Primary. The GOP and the DNC ARE the problem...they will be the source of the solution.

[nolanvt]

If I didn't want to vote for Cuccinelli or McAuliffe, who should I have voted for?

[133743Hokie]

If I didn't want to vote for Cuccinelli or McAuliffe, who should I have voted for?

IMO, when only two candidates have realistic potential for winning you have to vote for the one closest to your positions or that will "do the least damage". By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable. Maybe you felt that way. If so then you have no right to complain about the actions of either candidate if they win as you did nothing to stop it. Remember, there is no perfect candidate.

[Hokie5150]

By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable.

This is an absolutely false statement. Period. By not voting but not voting for the DNC or GOP candidate, one is making that the statement that they vote but they do not support the DNC or the GOP and their respective policies. You are being held captive by the DNC/GOP machine and made to act out of fear. If enough people would stop supporting the DNC/GOP machine, politicians would realize that there is a large voting bloc that must be considered. As it stands now, the parties have absolutely no motivation to change because people like yourself are going to continue to support no matter what they do.

[Hokie5150]

If I didn't want to vote for Cuccinelli or McAuliffe, who should I have voted for?

Isn't it obvious? You are apparently supposed to vote for the one that scares you the least regardless of whether or not you support anything they stand for.

[USN_Hokie]

That's why even though this is just Kabuki theater, it would be a pretty powerful statement to make McAuliffe veto a bill that removes "dangerous" guns from his presence.

Not in Virginia...the budget and it's approval lies completely with the General Assembly...there would be nothing for the Gubner to veto.

LOL, really? I knew VA was a weak governorship, but wow.

[awesome guy]

By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable.

This is an absolutely false statement. Period. By not voting but not voting for the DNC or GOP candidate, one is making that the statement that they vote but they do not support the DNC or the GOP and their respective policies. You are being held captive by the DNC/GOP machine and made to act out of fear. If enough people would stop supporting the DNC/GOP machine, politicians would realize that there is a large voting bloc that must be considered. As it stands now, the parties have absolutely no motivation to change because people like yourself are going to continue to support no matter what they do.

but you do support someone with the exact same policies, only with a L behind their name. IE you're the exact thing you're voting against, a blind party follower.

[Hokie5150]

but you do support someone with the exact same policies, only with a L behind their name. IE you're the exact thing you're voting against, a blind party follower.

I don't vote blindly L, though. I vote 3rd party/Independent/write-in. I know my candidate is not going to win. Winning elections at the point in the process isn't the point. It's the protest of being a voter and having that vote count for a candidate that not a Democrat or a Republican. If enough people did that, there would be a voting bloc that would be too large to ignore. Instead people continue to vote lockstep with the DNC and the GOP and the results remain the same because both parties know they have your vote already locked up.

[awesome guy]

but you do support someone with the exact same policies, only with a L behind their name. IE you're the exact thing you're voting against, a blind party follower.

I don't vote blindly L, though. I vote 3rd party/Independent/write-in. I know my candidate is not going to win. Winning elections at the point in the process isn't the point. It's the protest of being a voter and having that vote count for a candidate that not a Democrat or a Republican. If enough people did that, there would be a voting bloc that would be too large to ignore. Instead people continue to vote lockstep with the DNC and the GOP and the results remain the same because both parties know they have your vote already locked up.

You're just like the people you're protesting. Got it.

[Hokie5150]

but you do support someone with the exact same policies, only with a L behind their name. IE you're the exact thing you're voting against, a blind party follower.

I don't vote blindly L, though. I vote 3rd party/Independent/write-in. I know my candidate is not going to win. Winning elections at the point in the process isn't the point. It's the protest of being a voter and having that vote count for a candidate that not a Democrat or a Republican. If enough people did that, there would be a voting bloc that would be too large to ignore. Instead people continue to vote lockstep with the DNC and the GOP and the results remain the same because both parties know they have your vote already locked up.

You're just like the people you're protesting. Got it.

I see you don't understand the issue. Got it.

[awesome guy]

but you do support someone with the exact same policies, only with a L behind their name. IE you're the exact thing you're voting against, a blind party follower.

I don't vote blindly L, though. I vote 3rd party/Independent/write-in. I know my candidate is not going to win. Winning elections at the point in the process isn't the point. It's the protest of being a voter and having that vote count for a candidate that not a Democrat or a Republican. If enough people did that, there would be a voting bloc that would be too large to ignore. Instead people continue to vote lockstep with the DNC and the GOP and the results remain the same because both parties know they have your vote already locked up.

You're just like the people you're protesting. Got it.

I see you don't understand the issue. Got it.

I understand it fine. You just can't see your self.

[HokieJoe]

http://m.heraldcourier.com/news/va-tigh ... l?mode=jqm

I remember when the Sarvis voters here refused to believe that McAuliffe would be able to infringe on their 2A rights. But just like Obama, McAuliffe (or any democrat tyrant) doesn't let silly things like laws or Legislatures get in his way of advancing his anti-liberty agenda.

I wish the republicans has run someone worth a damn, I wouldn't have had to vote for sarvis.

What was your biggest problem with Cuccinelli?

He was an ideologue who used his position as attorney general to advance a number of positions and lawsuits that wasted government resources in order to advance his own career.

And that is SO unlike the reprobate in office now. Excellent plan!

[Hokie CPA]

If I didn't want to vote for Cuccinelli or McAuliffe, who should I have voted for?

IMO, when only two candidates have realistic potential for winning you have to vote for the one closest to your positions or that will "do the least damage". By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable. Maybe you felt that way. If so then you have no right to complain about the actions of either candidate if they win as you did nothing to stop it. Remember, there is no perfect candidate.

When you choose to ignore what the candidates say and pay attention, instead, to what they do and how they vote, you quickly determine that there is absolutely no difference between the candidates of the two major parties. Well, I refuse to support that system and I won't vote for either one of them.

[awesome guy]

If I didn't want to vote for Cuccinelli or McAuliffe, who should I have voted for?

IMO, when only two candidates have realistic potential for winning you have to vote for the one closest to your positions or that will "do the least damage". By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable. Maybe you felt that way. If so then you have no right to complain about the actions of either candidate if they win as you did nothing to stop it. Remember, there is no perfect candidate.

When you choose to ignore what the candidates say and pay attention, instead, to what they do and how they vote, you quickly determine that there is absolutely no difference between the candidates of the two major parties. Well, I refuse to support that system and I won't vote for either one of them.

Unless there's an L by their name

[Hokie CPA]

If I didn't want to vote for Cuccinelli or McAuliffe, who should I have voted for?

IMO, when only two candidates have realistic potential for winning you have to vote for the one closest to your positions or that will "do the least damage". By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable. Maybe you felt that way. If so then you have no right to complain about the actions of either candidate if they win as you did nothing to stop it. Remember, there is no perfect candidate.

When you choose to ignore what the candidates say and pay attention, instead, to what they do and how they vote, you quickly determine that there is absolutely no difference between the candidates of the two major parties. Well, I refuse to support that system and I won't vote for either one of them.

Unless there's an L by their name

Here's the thing about that: I can vote, and done so in the past, for a fiscally responsible Blue-dog Democrat who does not support high taxes and excessive spending. Like I said, it's not about what they say, it's how they vote. Rep. Glenn Nye was such a Democrat. My only complaint with Nye was that when the time came to elect a Speaker, there was no way he wasn't going to vote for Pelosi. But time and again, he opposed large spending bills.

[awesome guy]

If I didn't want to vote for Cuccinelli or McAuliffe, who should I have voted for?

IMO, when only two candidates have realistic potential for winning you have to vote for the one closest to your positions or that will "do the least damage". By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable. Maybe you felt that way. If so then you have no right to complain about the actions of either candidate if they win as you did nothing to stop it. Remember, there is no perfect candidate.

When you choose to ignore what the candidates say and pay attention, instead, to what they do and how they vote, you quickly determine that there is absolutely no difference between the candidates of the two major parties. Well, I refuse to support that system and I won't vote for either one of them.

Unless there's an L by their name

Here's the thing about that: I can vote, and done so in the past, for a fiscally responsible Blue-dog Democrat who does not support high taxes and excessive spending. Like I said, it's not about what they say, it's how they vote. Rep. Glenn Nye was such a Democrat. My only complaint with Nye was that when the time came to elect a Speaker, there was no way he wasn't going to vote for Pelosi. But time and again, he opposed large spending bills.

So he was a more fiscally responsible Sarvis who was less responsible than Cucillini.

[133743Hokie]

By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable.

This is an absolutely false statement. Period. By not voting but not voting for the DNC or GOP candidate, one is making that the statement that they vote but they do not support the DNC or the GOP and their respective policies. You are being held captive by the DNC/GOP machine and made to act out of fear. If enough people would stop supporting the DNC/GOP machine, politicians would realize that there is a large voting bloc that must be considered. As it stands now, the parties have absolutely no motivation to change because people like yourself are going to continue to support no matter what they do.

you are both ignorant and arrogant when it comes to the reality of politics

[133743Hokie]

If I didn't want to vote for Cuccinelli or McAuliffe, who should I have voted for?

IMO, when only two candidates have realistic potential for winning you have to vote for the one closest to your positions or that will "do the least damage". By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable. Maybe you felt that way. If so then you have no right to complain about the actions of either candidate if they win as you did nothing to stop it. Remember, there is no perfect candidate.

When you choose to ignore what the candidates say and pay attention, instead, to what they do and how they vote, you quickly determine that there is absolutely no difference between the candidates of the two major parties. Well, I refuse to support that system and I won't vote for either one of them.

so there is no difference between cuccinelli and McAuliffe? None between Obama and Romney? That's nonsense

[Hokie CPA]

so there is no difference between cuccinelli and McAuliffe? None between Obama and Romney? That's nonsense

Is it? Can you name one single significant Bush policy that Obama has changed? Do you realize Obamacare is simply Romneycare amped up for national coverage rather than just for one state? Have the Republicans attempted to cut spending in any meaningful way?

At the last budget impasse, the Ryan budget disagreed with the Senate plan by $120 billion, if I remember correctly. That's basically a 3% difference in a $4 trillion spending plan. It's paltry and meaningless.

Has Obama not adopted the "Bush Tax Cuts" as his own? People with over $250,000 of TAXABLE ORDINARY INCOME got their top rate increased by 4.5%. That really doesn't affect too many people and the deficit has been brought back to where it was under Bush, pre-TARP.

So you tell me.... is there really a difference in how the two parties actually govern? Cuz I don't see one. They're both going to run a $600 billion annual deficit. Both sides have pretty much settled in on the tax structure at this point — they're not even arguing over it anymore.

[133743Hokie]

so there is no difference between cuccinelli and McAuliffe? None between Obama and Romney? That's nonsense

Is it? Can you name one single significant Bush policy that Obama has changed? Do you realize Obamacare is simply Romneycare amped up for national coverage rather than just for one state? Have the Republicans attempted to cut spending in any meaningful way?

At the last budget impasse, the Ryan budget disagreed with the Senate plan by $120 billion, if I remember correctly. That's basically a 3% difference in a $4 trillion spending plan. It's paltry and meaningless.

Has Obama not adopted the "Bush Tax Cuts" as his own? People with over $250,000 of TAXABLE ORDINARY INCOME got their top rate increased by 4.5%. That really doesn't affect too many people and the deficit has been brought back to where it was under Bush, pre-TARP.

So you tell me.... is there really a difference in how the two parties actually govern? Cuz I don't see one. They're both going to run a $600 billion annual deficit. Both sides have pretty much settled in on the tax structure at this point — they're not even arguing over it anymore.

I'll play...

Obama pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving what was a floundering but reasonably stable region in total chaos, undoing what was gained through blood and dollars over the previous 5+ years.

Romneycare was a STATE solution. Obamacare is a NATIONAL solution. There are too numerous differences between the two programs to list here, but suffice to say Obamacare has many more issues, has negatively impacted a significant portion of the population to achive minor positive outcomes. It is a mess, and continues to be a mess.

It's hard to pass a budget without compromise if it can be vetoed. The division of power in the legislature and the partisan nature leaves tremendous power in the hand of the executive. IIWII

And staying with budgets, you do realize that about 80% of the spending is fixed. So you only have about 20% to work with. So 3% of the 20%, or about 1/7th, isn't too bad. You have to understand that our population grows, costs rise, etc. so spending in many areas can't stay flat.

Obama increased taxes for many, not just the rich.

You think Bush or Romney would have exercised the dominion Obama has with Executive Orders? I think not.

You think a Romney Justice Dept. would have acted as Holder's did?

There are significant differences, and there are nuanced differences, but to think that we would be where we are today if the Dems remained in control of the senate (and house) or if Romney were president instead of Obama is nonsense.

[Hokie5150]

By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable.

This is an absolutely false statement. Period. By not voting but not voting for the DNC or GOP candidate, one is making that the statement that they vote but they do not support the DNC or the GOP and their respective policies. You are being held captive by the DNC/GOP machine and made to act out of fear. If enough people would stop supporting the DNC/GOP machine, politicians would realize that there is a large voting bloc that must be considered. As it stands now, the parties have absolutely no motivation to change because people like yourself are going to continue to support no matter what they do.

you are both ignorant and arrogant when it comes to the reality of politics

Your inability to understand the point of voting 3rd party does not make me ignorant of political reality. Political reality is precisely why I vote 3rd party/Independent rather than supporting the status quo via the DNC/GOP.

[133743Hokie]

By not voting for a viable candidate you are indicating you don't care which of the viable candidates wins, that they are interchangeable.

This is an absolutely false statement. Period. By not voting but not voting for the DNC or GOP candidate, one is making that the statement that they vote but they do not support the DNC or the GOP and their respective policies. You are being held captive by the DNC/GOP machine and made to act out of fear. If enough people would stop supporting the DNC/GOP machine, politicians would realize that there is a large voting bloc that must be considered. As it stands now, the parties have absolutely no motivation to change because people like yourself are going to continue to support no matter what they do.

you are both ignorant and arrogant when it comes to the reality of politics

Your inability to understand the point of voting 3rd party does not make me ignorant of political reality. Political reality is precisely why I vote 3rd party/Independent rather than supporting the status quo via the DNC/GOP.

I'm glad you feel good about voting 3rd party, but in doing so you are disengaging. To each his own.

[Hokie5150]

I understand it fine.

Your posts suggest otherwise.

[awesome guy]

I understand it fine.

Your posts suggest otherwise.

false.

[nolanvt]

At what point is the onus on the candidate to convince the voters to vote for them instead of 'against the other candidate'? If I lean right of center, it's not my responsibility to vote for whomever the GOP trots out there. Cuccinelli was an exception to my general rule of what's tolerable. And if Trump won the nomination (he's not, but this is merely an example for this post), are me, BigDave, and others obligated to vote for him because he's not Hillary?