No One But Paul. I meant it.

[sailingaway]

The way I see it, I have three options:

Stay home.

Write-in RP.

Vote GJ.

I should know this, but does anyone know if write-ins are counted in NH? If they are, I'll definitely write-in RP. Otherwise, I'll probably stay home.

Yes write ins are counted in NH. Even where they are not, the votes for 'other' or left blank votes are collected in a none of the above 'undervote' tally we can find and publish. I don't have a problem with people who want to vote for Gary doing that, but it does irritate me seeing them in Ron Paul's forum trying to convince Ron Paul supporters not to vote for Ron Paul, and pretending there will be no record at all of write ins for Ron Paul in states where write ins aren't counted specifically to the name of the write in candidate. Now, some may feel attachment to the L party and want to vote for them rather than a write in, but when I'm voting for a candidate for conviction, I'm not going to switch to vote for another candidate who can't win either, just so my votes are counted for this other candidate I don't want. If they DO take votes for GJ as Ron Paul votes (which I doubt) I would expect them to then think that barring RP we'd be fine with a candidate like GJ, and I wouldn't, personally, and don't want to give the impression that would do it for me. I want to make it very clear what I want, and if they don't count it to his name, 'none of the above' is the next most accurate vote, for me.

On the NH Ron Paulers, remember to vote for Andy Sanborne for Senate, the co Chair of Ron's state campaign committee, and in the NH forum there are a bunch of candidates recommended by the Liberty groups there. A ton of them endorsed Ron in his race, and something like 90% of those who endorsed Ron and ran again won their primaries. However, now they need votes in the general election.

 

[sailingaway]

Here are the liberty candidates we were tracking in the NH primary, some were just better than the other, but enough so that a recommendation was made. But contact the OP of this for more info, Kieth is the one with the background: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/conten...-Tues-September-11th-Primary-in-New-Hampshire

 

[JK/SEA]

Most folks would have to choose between medicating themselves and never driving again, or driving but suffering with the condition that cannabis could easily relieve. It's a serious enough problem to me.

Well, what i mean about 'problem' and not seeing it, is what i'm seeing is that this will not be a problem because of what i stated about chaos, and the option of the people to address any perceived problems through the Referendum process down the road, and or electing politicians that don't have the fear of the FEDS, and social conservatives.

 

[jcarcinogen]

Well, what i mean about 'problem' and not seeing it, is what i'm seeing is that this will not be a problem because of what i stated about chaos, and the option of the people to address any perceived problems through the Referendum process down the road, and or electing politicians that don't have the fear of the FEDS, and social conservatives.

http://www.nooni502.com/wordpress/faq-5

 

[affa]

Ron Paul or not at all.

Half my family wrote in Ron Paul. The other half abstained completely due to disgust with the whole sham (but are Ron Paul supporters).

I'll take it.

 

[jllundqu]

Gary Johnson is simply a lesser evil. No thanks.

The only reason to vote GJ is to get the Libertarian Party automatic ballot access for the next election as a way of pressuring the GOP to move towards liberty policies.

How is he a lessor evil? If I wholly support him and his ideas, are you saying its a wasted vote? I would refer you to the oft quoted John Adams on that ridiculous notion.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

How is he a lessor evil? If I wholly support him and his ideas, are you saying its a wasted vote? I would refer you to the oft quoted John Adams on that ridiculous notion.

Show me where in the US Constitution you find the power for the federal government to enforce marriage equality against the States at the point of a gun, considering that GJ has called that a "Constitutional right." If he simply had said that it was a good idea I wouldn't be so angry, but he called it a Constitutional right. That means he has claimed to find the power in the Constitution for Washington DC to take a pistol and execute governors by shooting them in the head if they do not legalize gay marriage.

This is not, for me, about whether we should have traditional marriage, gay marriage, or no marriage. This is about inventing fictional Constitutional powers out of thin air, which is exactly why we are in this mess. As a strict Constitutionalist, that practice is deal-breaker for me.

 

[affa]

Show me where in the US Constitution you find the power for the federal government to enforce marriage equality against the States at the point of a gun, considering that GJ has called that a "Constitutional right." If he simply had said that it was a good idea I wouldn't be so angry, but he called it a Constitutional right. That means he has claimed to find the power in the Constitution for Washington DC to take a pistol and execute governors by shooting them in the head if they do not legalize gay marriage.

While I don't support GJ, I think that's a pretty rough interpretation of what he meant. He certainly wasn't advocating execution of governors. I think, perhaps, he was simply implying that in order to treat all equally, we'd need to allow gay marriage, and therefore it's already 'a Constitutional right'. Loose wording, and you may disagree with him on that, but I don't think it's anywhere to the level you're making it.

But the only man I'd vote for is Ron Paul, either way.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

While I don't support GJ, I think that's a pretty rough interpretation of what he meant. He certainly wasn't advocating execution of governors. I think, perhaps, he was simply implying that in order to treat all equally, we'd need to allow gay marriage, and therefore it's already 'a Constitutional right'. Loose wording, and you may disagree with him on that, but I don't think it's anywhere to the level you're making it.

I disagree. Anything that is genuinely a Constitutionally guaranteed right, implies the power to use deadly force to protect and preserve it. If he didn't really mean that he would have the power as President to massacre state governments, with deadly force, then he should never have called it a Constitutional right.

I'm sorry, but I tend to take my Constitution very, very seriously.

But the only man I'd vote for is Ron Paul, either way.

GJ had my vote, then he lost it.

 

[dbill27]

I voted for GJ completely as a protest vote. I agree with everything Gunnyfreedom said about GJ and his constitutional ignorance, but for me it was just about giving the finger to the 2 parties and possibly helping out the lp or other third parties in the future.

 

[Origanalist]

voted for 1-502 and gay marriage...i despise social conservatives.

With 502 it says the DUI aspect will be in determining a DUI under the influence of pot by setting a test limit...meh...big deal. Just the fact that this passes will be a message that Washington State voters want pot legalized and taxed....thats good enough for me. Any blowback from this can be addressed down the road. Meanwhile, lets get this on the books as i stated.

Why did you vote down R74 and vote yes on I502? I502 is a HORRID law that will only serve to make a mockery of legalisation, and whose right is it of the government to tell people who can and cannot marry?

Here was my reasoning behind my votes. On the marijuana issue, I figured ANY movement against the war on drugs was a good thing. The police are granted virtual immunity when they decide to raid your house, possibly shoot you dead and confiscate your property. Any reduction in their powers would have to be considered a good thing. After reading what jcannon98188, jcarcinogen and Casey Jones posted, I believe I am going to get another ballot. There sounds like there is way too much room for more abuse than there already is and I will not knowingly give the government more power than they already have. Thank you all for the feedback.

“Legalise Cannabis International” Endorses “No on I-502″ found at the link jcarcinogen provided.

As for the reason I opposed the gay marriage issue is that it again justifies more big government and never in my lifetime was anybody's door broken down, their house and or property confiscated by the government nor has anybody been shot by police in their home because they were gay. Nor will it happen for the rest of my life.

 

[FrankRep]

Don't tell me how to vote my conscience.

I'm using Common Sense, but I'm sure your method will surely get Ron Paul elected because you are the master strategist.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm using Common Sense, but I'm sure your method will surely get Ron Paul elected because you are the master strategist.

The goal of a vote for conscience is to vote your conscience. You can vote however you like, don't mock people for wanting to vote their principles.

 

[affa]

and never in my lifetime was anybody's door broken down, their house and or property confiscated by the government nor has anybody been shot by police in their home because they were gay. Nor will it happen for the rest of my life.

i doubt this. my guess is it's happened, though certainly would never be documented that way.

 

[RickyJ]

I have to do it on a screen, but I will write his name in, and if I can, I will take a picture of it. I want some proof that I voted for him, since there are no paper trails with these machines. Everyone should take a picture of their vote and post it at some central website where they can all be counted, so we can get a better idea of the real vote count instead of the one we will hear about on election night.

 

[jcannon98188]

Here was my reasoning behind my votes. On the marijuana issue, I figured ANY movement against the war on drugs was a good thing. The police are granted virtual immunity when they decide to raid your house, possibly shoot you dead and confiscate your property. Any reduction in their powers would have to be considered a good thing. After reading what jcannon98188, jcarcinogen and Casey Jones posted, I believe I am going to get another ballot. There sounds like there is way too much room for more abuse than there already is and I will not knowingly give the government more power than they already have. Thank you all for the feedback.

“Legalise Cannabis International” Endorses “No on I-502″ found at the link jcarcinogen provided.

As for the reason I opposed the gay marriage issue is that it again justifies more big government and never in my lifetime was anybody's door broken down, their house and or property confiscated by the government nor has anybody been shot by police in their home because they were gay. Nor will it happen for the rest of my life.

Yeah, my issue with i502 is the abuse it gives the police state.

On R74, I am for it, because I do not believe it is the governments job to regulate who can marry and who can't. It provides one step closer to ending the abuse that the gay community has to face. I don't even believe gay marriage is right (I'm a one man one woman kind of guy) but I do believe that no government should ever deny someone the ability to marry who they love.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Doug Wead convinced me to vote for Gary Johnson instead of writing in Ron Paul. My main concerns are that
#1 My write in vote won't be counted
#2 The Libertarian Party will lose it's status on my ballot

I'm pretty much convinced that a vote for Gary Johnson will be in the minds of the GOP loyalists a vote for Ron Paul. They believe that we're going for Johnson in place of Ron Paul and I WANT them to KNOW without a doubt that they pushed me away from voting for a GOP candidate. I want it to resonate in their minds. I want it to marinate until 2016

Your first reason makes no sense to me. Since when did the popular vote ever elect a President?

 

[Origanalist]

Yeah, my issue with i502 is the abuse it gives the police state.

On R74, I am for it, because I do not believe it is the governments job to regulate who can marry and who can't. It provides one step closer to ending the abuse that the gay community has to face. I don't even believe gay marriage is right (I'm a one man one woman kind of guy) but I do believe that no government should ever deny someone the ability to marry who they love.

But doesn't R74 just affirm the governments authority to "regulate who can marry and who can't"?

 

[jcannon98188]

But doesn't R74 just affirm the governments authority to "regulate who can marry and who can't"?

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you vote for it, then it allows more people to marry (which I equate to more freedom). If you vote it down, then the government stops people from being married (which I equate with less freedom). While both are government regulating marriage, voting for it allows people to be freer to follow their heart. Under your reasoning, any law which grants us more freedom, is still technically the government deciding what we can and cannot do. While that is true, it is a step in the right direction. Ideally, government would completely get out of the marriage business though.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

This seems familiar .. oh yeah ... Obamney: The Mandated Choice 2012