Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
https://uwsboard.com/
How has the 36 year old dreamer earned your vote?Hokie CPA wrote:Not speaking for anyone other than myself, gay marriage should be irrelevant at the federal level. When I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, they were running for federal offices and their positions on gay marriage didn't really concern me. However our governor will most definitely have an input into whether a repeal of the gay marriage amendment will ever be put to another vote in the Commonwealth. It's an important issue at the state level. I won't be voting for Cuccinelli for plenty of reasons other than gay marriage... such as I just don't like him. Funny enough, I won't be voting for Terry McAuliffe for very much the same reason: I just don't like him. I don't trust either one of them to do anything they say or to act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. Neither one has earned my vote and I don't anticipate either one of them doing anything to change my opinion for the rest of my life.
Speaking for myself, Sarvis favors gay marriage, and Cuccinelli seems to be on the extreme end of his anti-gay viewpoints.awesome guy wrote:How has the 36 year old dreamer earned your vote?Hokie CPA wrote:Not speaking for anyone other than myself, gay marriage should be irrelevant at the federal level. When I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, they were running for federal offices and their positions on gay marriage didn't really concern me. However our governor will most definitely have an input into whether a repeal of the gay marriage amendment will ever be put to another vote in the Commonwealth. It's an important issue at the state level. I won't be voting for Cuccinelli for plenty of reasons other than gay marriage... such as I just don't like him. Funny enough, I won't be voting for Terry McAuliffe for very much the same reason: I just don't like him. I don't trust either one of them to do anything they say or to act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. Neither one has earned my vote and I don't anticipate either one of them doing anything to change my opinion for the rest of my life.
Good luck with that logic with this crowd...quite a few of the UWS crew don't ascribe to the vote for theory of politics. It seems to some that the vote against something is more important. To each his one, though. As my Grandmother used to say, "It wouldn't do for us to all be alike."nolanvt wrote:My vote is a vote for Sarvis and his brand of conservatism in comparison to Cuccinelli's. It's not a vote or a half-vote for McAuliffe. It's a vote for Sarvis.
That's not what Nolan and CPA were saying. At least not the way I interpreted it. I read it as the R and D not winning their vote. So I asked the next logical question, what did the L do to win your vote? The question is obviously designed to show they're voting party just like everyone else.Hokie5150 wrote:Good luck with that logic with this crowd...quite a few of the UWS crew don't ascribe to the vote for theory of politics. It seems to some that the vote against something is more important. To each his one, though. As my Grandmother used to say, "It wouldn't do for us to all be alike."nolanvt wrote:My vote is a vote for Sarvis and his brand of conservatism in comparison to Cuccinelli's. It's not a vote or a half-vote for McAuliffe. It's a vote for Sarvis.
Re: the gay marriage issue, Romney's public opposition didn't stop me from voting for him for President in 2012. That's because Romney, like all politicians, lie about various things to get elected, and I believe that he doesn't have a problem with it deep down.awesome guy wrote:That's not what Nolan and CPA were saying. At least not the way I interpreted it. I read it as the R and D not winning their vote. So I asked the next logical question, what did the L do to win your vote? The question is obviously designed to show they're voting party just like everyone else.Hokie5150 wrote:Good luck with that logic with this crowd...quite a few of the UWS crew don't ascribe to the vote for theory of politics. It seems to some that the vote against something is more important. To each his one, though. As my Grandmother used to say, "It wouldn't do for us to all be alike."nolanvt wrote:My vote is a vote for Sarvis and his brand of conservatism in comparison to Cuccinelli's. It's not a vote or a half-vote for McAuliffe. It's a vote for Sarvis.
awesome guy wrote:That's not what Nolan and CPA were saying. At least not the way I interpreted it. I read it as the R and D not winning their vote. So I asked the next logical question, what did the L do to win your vote? The question is obviously designed to show they're voting party just like everyone else.
USN_Hokie wrote:What are the distinguishing factors between Cuccinelli and Ron Paul on the issue of Gay Marriage? When Libertarians were giving their reasons for not voting for Cuccinelli on TOB, this was always at the forefront. Yet, a cursory look at Ron Paul's position in 2008 (or Gary Johnson's, for that matter...before he won the Libertarian party's nomination for 2012) doesn't seem too different from Cuccinielli's.
What evidence would you point to which leads one to that conclusion?nolanvt wrote:Speaking for myself, Sarvis favors gay marriage, and Cuccinelli seems to be on the extreme end of his anti-gay viewpoints.awesome guy wrote:How has the 36 year old dreamer earned your vote?Hokie CPA wrote:Not speaking for anyone other than myself, gay marriage should be irrelevant at the federal level. When I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, they were running for federal offices and their positions on gay marriage didn't really concern me. However our governor will most definitely have an input into whether a repeal of the gay marriage amendment will ever be put to another vote in the Commonwealth. It's an important issue at the state level. I won't be voting for Cuccinelli for plenty of reasons other than gay marriage... such as I just don't like him. Funny enough, I won't be voting for Terry McAuliffe for very much the same reason: I just don't like him. I don't trust either one of them to do anything they say or to act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. Neither one has earned my vote and I don't anticipate either one of them doing anything to change my opinion for the rest of my life.
My vote is a vote for Sarvis and his brand of conservatism in comparison to Cuccinelli's. It's not a vote or a half-vote for McAuliffe. It's a vote for Sarvis.