You quoted the first sentence of my reply, but ignored the second sentence of my reply.

It doesn't matter what anyone else says or thinks about the matter.

No one is going into the voting booth with you, so vote as you please.... or don't.

I really don't care, as you are entitled to vote for whichever candidate YOU feel is most qualified for the job.

Just don't be that guy who refuses to vote, then bitches about the results.

Your second sentence: "It is up to each of us to look within and make that decision, based on what each of us personally believes to be the correct choice." I didn't bother to quote that because that seems, well, obvious. Even if the "correct choice" is based upon getting a kickback and/or special treatment as a result of one's support/campaign contribution.

I asked the original question because I couldn't see any substantial reason to vote for any of the three "mainstream" candidates based upon what I could read on their websites or see in news articles. I thought perhaps someone had other information (personal communication, statements heard at candidate forums, etc.) that might have been useful in adding to the material available for consideration. I'd like to think that I'm willing to listen and learn what I can about each candidates positions. As I have said above, I have emailed and called all three campaigns with some questions about Second Amendment issues and gotten no replies at all from any of them. Just wondering if someone else had information about the candidates on these issues (or others) that might be useful or even persuasive in arriving at a conclusion. 

Have no fear, Tulsi is there on the ground and in the air.



Rep. Tulsi Gabbard surveys the lava flow on private property in Pahoa. Photo courtesy Office of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

man, that is not a flattering angle for tulsi

Delete.

True.. this left/right choice isn't really working.  like someone said earlier... it's a choice between a green turd or brown turd.

In my opinion, reform includes 2 things:

1. Get rid of the primary election.  It limits our choices and gets rid of the best candidate from the running.  It's ONLY sole purpose is to help the party stay in control.
2. Term limits.

GET RID OF POLITICAL PARTIES ( NO, NOT PARTY'S ) ALL TOGETHER !
That'll f'm up 

man, that is not a flattering angle for tulsi

She has a flattering angle something ?

Figured I'd wrap this up on election day by posting a link to and some excerpts from a slightly humorous yet serious attempt by a libertarian to make some points about our current political system, including elections. Hope everybody had a good day. And thanks for all the feedback in this thread.

Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You

http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/04/08/top-10-reasons-libertarians-arent-nice/



The nature of the State is to make false promises to bait support from the people it victimizes. They promise to protect you from boogeymen, they promise to solve your economic problems, they promise to carry out the will of your deity. We see this as completely ridiculous, we know it will fail, and we know that most people are stupid enough to swallow it hook line and sinker, so we can’t compete with it in a popular vote.
.....
The nice thing about freedom is, people get to make their own decisions. We’re not entirely sure why this bothers you so much. Every time you ask us “What if X?” we have a thousand different answers we can give you, if you don’t like the first one, we’re happy to give you another. The whole point is, you get to decide for yourself what suits you best in a market environment.

You have become so used to the State being the arbiter of all things, that you seem to panic at every uncertainty. The funny part about this is, the State hasn’t provided you with any certainty at all. There’s absolute chaos in the world, governments have murdered over 260 million of their own citizens in the last century, not including war, and you’re still freaking out about speed limits.
.....
If you want to have people threaten you all the time and tell you what to do, that’s your business. We don’t recommend it or anything, but really you’re more than welcome to submit to someone else’s authority in the absence of the State. We might talk to you about the virtues of freedom, but we’re honestly not trying to force you to be free. All we’re saying is you have no right to force us under the same authority.

By contrast, you want to take our property, force us into wars, “educate” our children, and control our business and personal relationships. You have some really weird idea in your head that this notion of “government” makes that okay, but there is no other circumstance in which you would consider that socially acceptable. We don’t believe in government, so we look at this like any other lunatic trying to do these things to us.

Seriously, what the fuck? Just leave me alone.

man, that is not a flattering angle for tulsi

NBC Nightly News just reported Tulsi has been activated with her National Guard unit to help with the lava flow evac and support efforts.

 

NBC Nightly News just reported Tulsi has been activated with her National Guard unit to help with the lava flow evac and support efforts.

 

yeah
local morning news said that this morning

yeah
local morning news said that this morning

Thanks for sharing that news this morning.  I must have overlooked your post.

Thanks for sharing that news this morning.  I must have overlooked your post.

 

[Sorry about the video link problems below... but the links work...]

Quote from: mauidog on October 30, 2014, 03:30:03 PM
 [partial quote]
    You need to read up on Romney's Healthcare plan before trashing him on it.

Update today on your beloved Romneycare in light of the many Jonathan Gruber video comments that have become public in the past week re his involvement as the architect of the deceptive formulations of Obamacare, and his previous deceptions in creating Romneycare in Massachusetts (for both of which he has received nearly ONE MILLION dollars of taxpayer money [Update at 1 PM: New article listing the contracts with Gruber by other states puts his taxpayer paychecks at 6 (six) MILLION since 2009: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/392825/jonathan-gruber-6-million-man-deroy-murdock] so that we can all pay more for health insurance).

Gruber: RomneyCare just a way to “rip off” the feds for $400 million a year

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/17/gruber-romneycare-just-a-way-to-rip-off-the-feds-for-400-million-a-year/

"We may already have gotten to the point where numbers have run past their usefulness in identifying Jonathan Gruber’s serial revelations. We may need to start naming them instead as we struggle to keep up with his arrogant bragging. For instance, we missed this little gem that emerged on Friday, where the MIT professor brags that RomneyCare was set up — with the assistance of Ted Kennedy, of course — to “rip off” the federal government to the tune of $400 million a year:" [video]



*****

Even liberal Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer seems genuienely disturbed by Gruber's comments, attitudes and behavior. (In the other video posted with the story.)

Here's a somewhat amusing music video about Mr. Gruber and the Whitehouse strategy to "sell" the American people on Obamacare:

Only $400 million a year?

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
today released his annual oversight report “Wastebook 2013” highlighting 100 examples of wasteful and low-priority
spending totaling nearly $30 billion. 

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=e7359436-1572-414e-8acc-0222cad1c7d5

That's a drop in the bucket!   

Only $400 million a year?
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=e7359436-1572-414e-8acc-0222cad1c7d5

That's a drop in the bucket!   

That's $400 million for ONLY ONE STATE, and ONLY FOR ONE PROGRAM: ROMNEYCARE (aka healthcare... and that's just the federal government "subsidy", not state tax money subsidies/costs). Assuming proportionate population, costs, etc., were Gruber to have helped the other 49 states deceitfully enact bogus mandated healthcare laws similar to Romneycare, that'd come to approximately $200 BILLION in federal funds alone for the entire U.S. That's a good-sized drop.

That's $400 million for ONLY ONE STATE, and ONLY FOR ONE PROGRAM: ROMNEYCARE (aka healthcare... and that's just the federal government "subsidy", not state tax money subsidies/costs). Assuming proportionate population, costs, etc., were Gruber to have helped the other 49 states deceitfully enact bogus mandated healthcare laws similar to Romneycare, that'd come to approximately $200 BILLION in federal funds alone for the entire U.S. That's a good-sized drop.

Romneycare did NOT include the mandate Obamacare has, meaning  people were not taxed/fined for not paying into the system.

Based on that, and pure numbers of people and businesses having to pay into Obamacare, and the lower standards of care you can be sure Obamacare will allow (just like VA, Medicare, and Medicaid), they'll keep costs and revenues close to balanced.