Big govt  <----- D --- R ---- L ----->  small govt

We are at D. Getting to R is easier than L.

While I would agree that a libertarian would be great, I highly doubt he would get elected. There is just not enough support.

Five days until election day:

Latest Polls All Hawaii Governor Polls

Election Projection:  David Ige by 16.7%

Firm                                   Ige       Aiona   Hannemann
CBS News/NYT/YouGov   54         22   5
Honolulu Civil Beat/MRG   40         34   11
Honolulu Star-Advertiser   47         35   12

No one besides Ige can get elected. It's over. "There is just not enough support." A vote for anyone other than Ige at this point is a vote for a loser. Do you want to vote for a loser that in the big picture and long term is indistinguishable from Ige, or for someone who wants to fundamentally change the role of government relative to individual freedom and liberty? Just asking.

A better move would be to get a more right leaning individual in office, chip right for a change. Or let the left just keep chipping left.  Up to you.

You didn't give any concrete (or even general) examples of how Aiona would be "chipping right". You mean he'd make cannabis possession a mandatory life sentence and make the asset forfeiture laws even more draconian than they already are? He already opposes CCW and rolling back any of the other "progressive" "common sense gun safety regulations" that we are all too familiar with. I don't want "chipping" left or right, I want movement toward smaller government and respect for individual freedom and liberty.

You keep trying to debate me when I am agreeing with you almost 100%.  Only thing I am disagreeing with you on is the point you want to make, that you won't vote for anyone when there isn't a candidate that will hold the exact same ideals that you hold.  No one will ever hold the exact same ideals as you except you.

I wouldn't say that your advocacy for voting for Aiona, who has a proven track record of big government, limiting personal freedoms and choices, and disrespect for the Second Amendment, is "almost" the same as me advocating voting for a Libertarian. I'm well aware that it's unlikely any candidate will conform 100% to my preferred policy positions, and I disagree with some of the generic Libertarian positions, though it is possible there could be a libertarian candidate who might have similar differences from the Libertarian theory. I'm passionately unhappy that my only choice is to vote for candidates that have no practical chance of taking office. Of course for most Hawaii districts and offices, the same could be said for someone backing a Republican candidate, such as Mr. Aiona. The difference being, as I wrote above, that Libertarian governance would look substantially different, while Republican and Democrat governance, in the big picture and long term, ends up in virtually the same place (How did personal liberty fair during the 8 years of the recent Bush administration? For example: http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-judge-tea-party-vs-irs-suit-shows-moderate-dangers-to-liberty).

If you want to vote for some guy who is on the record as disrespecting your personal, fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights, by all means do so. That's your choice. Maybe he is "less worse" by some criteria you invent.  Voting for him puts you in the position (were he to win), however, of appearing to be a hypocrite should you ever complain in the future about his trampling on your rights. 

Shitz just sent out an email asking for people to support his fellow friend, Takai.

It's people with attitudes like this that helped relect Barrack Obama voted for Ron Paul

Shouldn't Takai be on the Big Island helping deliver water or something to the lava flow evacuees? 

I'm sure if his race was so close it hinged on the votes of those residents, he'd be doing exactly what Schatz did.

As an aside, Obamacare is just a copy on the national level of Romneycare instituted by Romney while governor of Massachusetts. Please list Mr. Romney's political accomplishments as governor that inspired you to vote for him.

How many votes did Ron Paul steal from Romney? Please cite your source. Since Ron Paul formally ended his campaign on May 14, 2012, as far as I can tell he wasn't even on the ballot anywhere. So you must be referring to write-in votes. The vote totals show that the lowest listed vote total for 2012 presidential candidates was 0.03% (40,628 votes) for Tom Hoefling of America's Party, which would mean that Ron Paul received something less that 40,000 total votes. Now please tell us, since Romney lost by just under FIVE (5) MILLION votes (and electoral college by 332 to 206), how those fewer than 40,000 votes cast as write-ins for Ron Paul cost Romney the election and/or contributed to the re-election of Obama. Please break it down by district/state to show how many electoral votes were taken from Romney by Paul write-ins. I'm looking forward to your detailed vote analysis.

If you're going to whine about blatantly false statistics and contrived assertions I'm surprised you picked Paul to be your scapegoat, since he wasn't on the ballot and received almost no votes at all. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, actually received the third most votes after Obama and Romney, at 0.99% (1,275,971 votes). Now, if you want to, using actual real statistics instead of your made up false claim, tell us how those votes for Johnson helped re-elect Obama. Which states did Romney lose the electoral college vote due to Johnson's totals? I already know the answer is: NONE. But by all means use your false statements as your best argument for voting for Aiona (?) or who, exactly?

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

Looking at the poll numbers though, not voting for Aiona is really another vote for Ige.  I can't help but wonder if Hannemann is on the D party payroll to distract and take away votes from Aiona.

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.

There were many "Paul-bots" who either wrote in his name or refused to vote in protest over him not being allowed to be nominated at the RNC based on a late rule change.

In other words, you're unwilling to provide any evidence at all to back up your original assertion with any facts or data that those who favored Ron Paul were a direct causal factor in Obama's re-election. Having been presented with the facts regarding the actual numbers of votes, etc., that clearly disprove your assertion, you decline to comment and support your original claim. Okay, got it.

There are many reasons Romney did not get elected:  Christians (and other religions) not voting for a Mormon, deceptive campaign ads concerning medicare and social security cuts, fake issues like Big Bird and Binders Full of Women comments, and so on.

You didn't mention anything at all in your original assertion ("It's people with attitudes like this that helped relect Barrack Obama voted for Ron Paul") except voting for Paul, which may be your opinion, but there are no facts to support that opinion. Not any facts that your are willing to provide us here anyway.

What I have yet to see explained is how this failure of a President won reelection against ANYBODY!!  With the economy, the Benghazi attack right after Obama's bragging that Al Queada was on its heels, the continued racial divisiveness, attacks on the 2nd Amendment, Obamacare's effects.

He got more votes, and he got way more votes in the districts that mattered in terms of the electoral college. Pretty simple really. Obama was clearly seen as the better choice by the most people, but that doesn't mean that many people who voted for him didn't see him as the lesser of two evils. You may find his record unworthy of earning your vote, but more people saw Romney's record as unworthy of earning their vote. Are you asking why your disdain for Obama was not shared by the 66 million voters who selected him over Romney, et. al.? Of course most people (the majority of those eligible to vote) don't register and don't vote, which says something about how relevant they see their choices are as to having impact on their actual lives. Or maybe they just don't care. I suppose we need to consider vote fraud as well, as there seem to be a number of fairly well-documented cases, but not likely enough to account for the total vote disparity.

Say what you want about Romney's medical programs, but he never designed it to destroy the private insurance industry and have only a single-payer system.  But, that's exactly what Obamacare is designed to do, and it's working quite well at that.

I wouldn't pretend to know what Romney's true intent was in designing and implementing his medical insurance reform in Massachusetts.

There are some interesting articles and video interviews, if you're interested in the topic of either voting your conscience as a libertarian or voting for the "lesser of two evils" in the form of a Republican who has a more likely chance of winning an election, currently available at Reason.com. These include a couple of interviews, one with Libertarian National Committee Vice Chair Arvin Vohra, which includes the topic of "Are Libertarians Spoiling the Midterm Elections?" I personally like what he has to say, and the way he says it. The "spoiler" questiion is at 4:25/


A video interview with the press spokesperson for the Republican National Committee about why libertarians should vote for Republicans, and some of the differences between the two. She pretty much sidesteps and/or avoids giving direct answers.


There is also an article about why one, as a libertarian, ought to vote libertarian. Here are the main points. See the article for explanations of each point.


Seven Reasons to Vote for the Libertarian Party

1. The Libertarian Party supports all of your freedoms, all of the time
2. The Libertarian Party is consistent and principled
3. Voting for old party politicians tells them that you want to keep government big
4. Voting Libertarian is the only clear message you can send
5. Voting Libertarian forces the old parties to take the libertarian positions
6. Because the old parties don't want you to
7. Voting Libertarian helps your favorite "libertarian-leaning" old party politician

No one can answer that question for you, OP.

Do I have to Google everything for you?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=did+ron+paul+supporters+cause+romney+to+lose

http://politic365.com/2012/11/27/romney-lost-because-of-ron-paul-supporters-speculative-but-possible/


You need to read up on Romney's Healthcare plan before trashing him on it. And remember, he was working with a Democrat-controlled  State Legislature, but still managed to make some significant improvements in the state.  Within 2 years of it passing, the legislature was making more changes that made the program more expensive by switching program managers.  Overall, Romney's plan insured over 98% of the residents in 2010 compared to the national estimate of over 83%.  And he did it WITHOUT CANCELLING private healthcare for the people that chose to keep it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform