I will be voting for Sarvis for a number of reasons. It's really no contest. Cucinelli and McAuliffe are both God awful candidates. It's a testament to both the parties' decadence that this is the best they can come up with. So here are the reasons:
- Cucinelli opposes gay marriage. Sarvis supports it.
- Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Really?! Look at the stats at marriages now in days. 45% of all marriages end in divorce is a low ball estimate, some estimates say as high as 65%. Abuse is rampant, cheating is a plague, people being their children's friends instead of disciplining them when they do illegal or immoral things is the new norm. So, all that doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage, but gay marriage will? Yeah right. Someone else's marriage has no effect on how I see my marriage or what it means to me.
- Gay marriage is against Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. No. It's. Not. You can read the Torah, Bible, and Quran from front to back, and you will find absolutely NOTHING about banning gay marriage. This is just another example of people using religion as a cover to protect their own hatred ideals. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that Christianity does ban gay marriage. Fine, then you personally, don't get married. But just because you think you shouldn't do something, does not give you the right to shove that ideal down someone else's throat, and say to them that they have to have the same opinion about this certain something that you do.
- More gay marriages end in divorce that heterosexual marriages. There is no conclusive evidence that shows this. Yes, some websites say so, but other websites, which are just as credible, say no. So one of them is lying. Which one is it? I don't know. That's why it's inconclusive. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that more gay marriages end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. So, using that same logic, we should ban Christians from getting married, because more Christians get divorced than Muslims. We should only allow Muslims to get married in this country. If we made that law, people would be up in arms, rightly so, because that's infringing on their rights. So why should we do the same thing to gays if Americans would riot if that same thing happened to them?
- Gay marriages lead to more trouble making kids, lower grades, etc. Again, no conclusive evidence. Sure, you can find a scientific study done by a influential organization that says so, but then you can turn around and find another scientific study done by another influential organization that says completely the opposite. Besides, even if it were true, since when did America ban everything except the group that is the best? That's like looking at schooling demographics, and banning all races from going to school except Asians, because Asians do the best in school. It's insane!
Gun control restricts peoples' inalienable right to defend themselves. It hurts law abiding citizens while helping criminals and thugs. There is really no argument here. The thing that will hurt citizens the most will be limiting magazines to only 10 rounds. I don't know about you, but if I'm facing 2 thugs each with gun that can hold 30 bullets, I'd sure as hell want a gun that can hold 30 bullets rather than 10. It's still possible to beat them, but a smaller magazine will just make it harder. And in a life or death situation, you want every advantage you can get.
3. Cucinelli voted to not raise the minimum wage.
http://votesmart.org/bill/3821/11799/50871/minimum-wage-increase#.UnFgFBBKQTs
One of the most basic things they teach you in economics is that the minimum wage must be proportional to inflation and standard of living. Well, the neo-cons have been so successful in keeping the minimum wage down for decades, while inflation and the standard of living have skyrocketed. If the minimum wage was proportional to inflation today, it would be more than $10. (Look it up, I'm not gonna waste my time putting a link for this well known fact).
Cucinelli follows the standard Republican mantra of not giving a flaming fuck about the poor people working their asses off to put food on the table. He just wants to lower taxes for his super rich friends and supporters, while squeezing the middle class out of existence and forcing them into the poor class.
4. McAuliffe wants to increase Medicaid, furthering our national debt and furthering peoples' dependence on government. Sarvis does not.
http://votesmart.org/public-statement/800471/issue-position-healthcare-and-virginias-economy#.UnFidxBKQTs
Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to take money from hard working people and give it to other people? That's right, nowhere. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to run such programs as Medicaid and Medicare. Those two programs are an overwhelming huge part of our federal debt. As tragic as peoples' stories are, we just cannot afford to keep these programs. They're running our country into the ground. Do I sound heartless because I don't want to give money to Grandma and poor kids? Maybe. But I don't think it is heartless to say to someone who is old and sick "I'm sorry, but I am in debt up to my eyeballs. My financial situation is a complete and utter wreck. I really can't afford to give you any money right now."
What the government should be focused on is strengthening the economy enough so that people do not need to rely on Medicaid and Medicare and lowering ridiculous medical costs so they don't cost the same as a house to get a simple operation done. There's nothing in the Constitution saying that the states themselves cannot provide Medicaid and Medicare, just so as long as they don't use federal money. People should also change their spending and lifestyle habits so that they're not completely broke when they get old. For example, in many other countries, old people move in with their children when they cannot live and work on their own. The child then pays for much of their old parents' expenses, eliminating the need for such programs as Medicaid and Medicare.
5. Both Cucinelli and McAuliffe do not want to legalize marijuana or end the ridiculous war on drugs. Sarvis wants to do both.
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/drug-reform
Cucinelli and McAuliffe both believe that the government knows what's better for you than you do. They believe the government knows how to better spend your money than you do. They believe that since they personally do not believe smoking marijuana is a good idea, then that means they should force that idea down peoples' throats, and make it so no one can smoke it.
If you think that smoking marijuana is bad/immoral, fine, I have no problem with that. Then don't do it then! But don't try and make everyone else think that same way!
Outlawing marijuana gives power to the Mexican drug cartels, because now they have a monopoly on selling the stuff, because legal companies can't. Estimates say that a whooping 60% of the cartels' profits come from selling marijuana:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=0
Just imagine if every ABC store also sold marijuana, for example. You could get it virtually in any town, and for much cheaper, because getting stuff on the black market is always more expensive than getting something the legal way. It wouldn't be profitable for the cartels to sell it anymore. Boom. There goes 60% of their profits. With a crippled income, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to fight them. But Republicans and Democrats want the war on drugs to continue. They want Mexican citizens to be continued to get kidnapped and beheaded. Why? Because as long as there is a war right next to us, the government can continue to sell weapons to both the cartels and the Mexican government. War is a racket. They can continue to get money for training the Mexican army and police. They don't give a flaming fuck about the Mexican people. They just want money money money.
Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it's not working with marijuana. The government should not micro-manage peoples' individual spending habits on luxuries. They should stop viewing casual users as criminals, just like casual users of alcohol are not alcoholics.
And there concludes my list. This is not a completely full list, just the top 5. Notice that both Cucinelli and McAuliffe both have ideas that I like. Cucinelli does not favor gun control. I agree with him on that issue. McAuliffe supports gay marriage. I agree with him on that issue. The thing is that their negatives far outweigh their positives. Sarvis is the only one where I agree with him on all the important issues and the majority of issues in general.
 |
| Robert Sarvis, Libertarian candidate for governor of Virginia |
No comments:
Post a Comment