Trump might stop Hillary , but Johnson would stop Trump from doing even worse than Hillary. No, there is no self sacrifice in my statement; it's self interest.

Yes, Obama (not even president) and every other President of the 20th-21st century, or longer.

Sounds good, Mr. Johnson.
But Frankly, if it wasn't for the Gulch, I would never have heard about you. I am familiar with the tenets of Libertarianism, and I even was discussing it way back in the late sixties, early seventies. But I'd like to hear from you personally. There are parts of Libertarianism that I don't agree with, but lots of parts that I do. Some persons in the Gulch that I respect are boosters of yours so that makes me willing to hear you or your surrogate tell me all about you
Anyone here care to be Mr. Johnson's avatar, or get him to make a direct statement?

In other words, you, also, refuse to accept the existence of external enemies, or to take at their own word their written declarations of war. Whether said declarations read "Workers of all countries, unite!" or "Fight and slay the infidels wheresoever ye find them!"

The latter enemy announced their intentions unmistakably by taking down the World Trade Center.

arent you arguing that lying down in front of a tank in Tianimen (sp) square in China would be standing up for principles- BUT it means you sacrifice yourself for it.

If indeed Trump is more electable than the other candidates on the repub side, and who can win over the democrats- doesnt that mean I will keep Hillary or Sanders from doing great damage to me?

I am not saying Trump, or any of the others for that matter, are consistent Objectivists standing up for individual freedom by a long shot.

Ragnar is a fictitious character. Your paranoia makes for bad foreign policy and sad self-fulfilling prophecy.

Only one? ;^)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
http://fortune.com/2015/09/18/preside...

According to an excerpt from “John F. Kennedy: A Biography”:

“On the evening of July 16, 1962, according to [Washington Post executive] Jim Truitt, Kennedy and Mary Meyer smoked marijuana together. … The president smoked three of the six joints Mary brought to him. At first he felt no effects. Then he closed his eyes and refused a fourth joint. ‘Suppose the Russians did something now,’ he said.”

Heck, that's not even a long drive. Spent some time working in Windham back in the 80s (but hated the winter. ) I hope you can get it settled to your mutual satisfaction soon.

I want to move to NH, that would work. Believe me, I am not holding this up. Wifey is dragging her feet.

If you're talking about an alien President whose sympathies lie with that external enemy, I would certainly agree. (And I'm not talking about Gary Johnson. He's not the man now holding office as President.)

Yeah, I'm feelin' it...

By far the largest enemy is not external, it's right here "at home". In a Voluntary environment, without force and taxes (the same thing, aren't they?) people can direct resources to self-defense as they deem necessary. From this will evolve militia based on common sense, not by sacrificing the right to life of others or of themselves.

I guess you can't move before the election ;^)

One pothead in the White House is enough.

You might try reading some of Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. Anyway, the Dem-Rep monopoly has managed to run off with all the campaign runds, leaving the LP and any other #parties with little to work with. Shame things are that way. It makes us all victims!

Replace them with those who, first, would repeal all gun-control laws, and second, would repeal the Neutrality Act so that volunteers can organize and, at need, form "unauthorized regiments" to go out and carry the war to the external enemy.

Excuse me. Your intentions, and Gary Johnson's intentions, are directly relevant. You ask me to vote for this man. You cannot expect to have my vote on the theory that he will prove impotent to enact his program.

And as for rational arguments, I have the most rational argument I could bring: an unassailable one. Because, were it assailable, you would assail it. First you quibble, then you descend to argumentum ad hominem.

Yes, we have to do better, with principle. There's nobody running for the Dem-Rep chiefdom offering anything worthwhile. The more things "change" the more they remain nothing but more of the same.

About all of the "oppressors" are already seated in the District of Criminals. What do you plan to do about THAT?

I may not even bother with voting, but if I do, it will be again for Gary. He's the only one who makes good sense!

My intentions are not relevant. What is likely to happen is relevant. Since you have no rational argument, you change the subject and keep offering unsupportable opinion.
You should just vote for the hand picked corrupted GOP candidate. They will tell you what to think.

"Probable" future? Come now. Do you really intend to campaign on someone's behalf by saying, "Vote for him, but don't worry, for he won't get all his program passed until much later"?

I wasn't talking about "probable" future. I was and am discussing intended future. I was discussing what Gary Johnson intends.

Next, your argument assumes no Senator would vote to draw down the military to coastal- and border-defense levels only. I would say, based on votes in the present Senate, that one-third of the Senate are committed to drawing down the military, because they just flat-out do not like its mission. One Senate election, or at most two, should suffice to produce a two-thirds majority Senate. Those two thirds could then expel the remaining third. "Each House...may, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." For any reason or no reason, as I read the Constitution.

Now let's try that again. What are your intentions? I did not and do not ask what is your bet. I asked for your intentions. Are you prepared to declare them?

Temlakos, I have tried to discuss probable future with you. Your conclusions are not valid. For example, the senate only elects 1/3 of the members in an election. If a miracle should happen and libertarians won every single seat being contested, then the senate would still be controlled by statists from the GOP and Dems. Your conclusion that libertarians would control both houses of congress is foolish. The rest of your conclusions are just as likely.

Now you know, and I know, that the first law any libertarian Congress would enact, would be one declaring all those contracts null and void. I asked you to give me your philosophical answer to the problem of preparing a society to meet an external foe, and, when necessary, to carry the war to that foe. Instead, you quibble. And I find that beneath you and unbecoming this forum.

For everyone's information, I call it quibbling to say, "Well, the election of such-a-President does not equate to the election of an agreeable Congress." A candidate for President commonly runs on a ticket. And that ticket includes candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives. Therefore: when I evaluate the program of a Gary Johnson, I assume he would have in the Congress enough sympathetic votes to carry it out.

As a matter of Constitutional fact: standing navies might seem part of the Constitution. I quote: "The Congress shall have the power...to provide for and maintain a navy." But: "The Congress shall have the power...to raise and support armies, but no appropriation for this purpose shall be for a term longer than two years." Therefore, a Gary Johnson might well argue that standing armies are ipso facto unconstitutional.