Four compelling reasons to vote for Trump:
1. Never Hillary!
2. Never Hillary!
3. Never Hillary!
4. Never Hillary!

I'm going for the "sure" way to beat Clinton...THAT is voting my conscience (thank you, Ted Cruz, for that advice).

If you don’t know what kind of Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton would appoint you are not paying attention. She is about as anti-gun and anti-free speech as you can get. Trump has put out a list of candidates approved by the Federalist society, a pro-Constitution entity. While there is no guarantee what any lawyer will do when appointed a powerful position like the Supreme Court, NOTHING AT ALL indicates for Clinton here.

2. Granted trade policy of both candidates is cockeyed. So are Hillary’s spending plans (free college, etc). Trump’s tax cuts will provide incentives for business to stay or relocate in the United States as well as spur economic growth.

3. Hillary’s corruption and malfeasance would put a normal person behind bars. Even Comey as much as admitted that. The same cannot be said of Trump.

4. Hillary complains that Trump has paid no tax in some years, but it is HER and her ilk that makes the rules. Trump only plays the game. Don’t blame him for outwitting the system. Applaud his acumen. Besides, taking advantage of the tax code is not cronyism. Cronyism is about selling out taxpayers to give special treatment to friends and HRC is the queen of this. Unless you embrace cronyism with both arms, you should be all out against the Clintons.

5. Gary Johnson is an irrelevancy. Deal with it. A vote for him in 2016 will send the same strength message that a vote for Eric Haas did in 1960.

6. You don't have to like or even respect Trump to deem him a better choice than Hillary Clinton.

Choose2Think
I think the reason Johnson was selected was twofold. One, he had the only thing even close to name recognition. Two abortion. With an election between a woman president and a man who is famously known to be a womanizer, I think that those in the Libertarian party feared giving additional ammo to that existing problem. I would be willing to bet some people who even would prefer a pro life over a pro choice candidate chose Johnson over Austin Peterson for that very reason.
As those who know me enough on this forum already know, I, like Ayn Rand, am staunchly pro-choice, and I'm glad Johnson was selected over the next most popular candidate Austin Peterson for those two primary reasons.

Sorry, but only two of those reasons were actual endorsements. And the Supreme Court argument falls flat. Look at the GOP nominee Chief Justice John Roberts and his support of Obamacare. Many moderate judges were appointed by Democrats. You never know what a justice is going to do once they are on that bench. That's a weak argument.
Economics? Trumps supports Tariffs and starting trade wars. That will spell disaster for consumers who will only see prices on nearly everything rise.
The third is that Hillary is corrupt. Yeah, so is Trump. He calls his ability to "take advantage" of existing laws to give him a leg up on others a positive. It shows that he not only doesn't oppose cronyism, but that he supports it!
The final, if you really want someone who will FIGHT the establishment... Vote for Gary Johnson. He's not perfect, but literally no one running is. Or honestly ever will be. But he is the only one who at least claims to support the cause of Liberty.

I would find it a bit strange for a Hillary supporter to switch to Johnson. If its true, hey, thats great. But she is so crooked and such a supporter of cronyism and socialism that a switch to Johnson would seem incongruous.

...and the danger of Hillary being elected (from my btother):

Yesterday I saw and heard Hillary Clinton make this cryptic declaration:

“It’s not just my name on the ballot. Every issue you care about – think about it, because in effect it’s on the ballot, too. The next 40 days will determine the next 40 years.”

We all know that she refers to the Supreme Court.

"Voting Libertarian will put the establishment parties on notice"
When Johnson started polling > 5%, I started thinking he really could win, esp if there were some scandal. Now I'm thinking that's less likely, sadly because he says things that sound odd on TV.

I agree with what you say about a lone vote not deciding and politicians paying attention to voting numbers, but if it's right on the edge between Clinton, who I think is a great candidate but one that is not interested in reducing the size of gov't or the power of the exec branch and Trump; it will be hard to vote for Johnson.

I'm still hoping for an unlikely upset that makes Johnson win the election.

If Hillary wins (unlikely in my view) don't blame it on Gary Johnson. The polls indicate he is drawing more votes from Hillary than from Trump. In a close race Johnson's presence could even make a Trump victory possible.

On the mark. Our choice, between a facist and a socialist, is unacceptable. I will be true to my principles and vote for the very flawed Johnson. This election, wherein Trump and Clinton are equally reviled by 80% of voters, presented the Libertarian Party with an unprecedented opportunity that we squandered by nominating Johnson. What the hell happened?

as long as the votes for him dont result in Hillary winning, I think its ok. If it turns out that Hillary wins , and votes for Johnson could have stopped that, I will be upset and be vindicated.

Johnson may not be a threat to win, but he's certainly a threat to influence the outcome, just as Ralph Nader did in 2000.

I was always listed as Libertarian and will reregister as Libertarian after this election. Johnson just isnt a good charismatic candidate though. Trump really hijacked the repub party, which I think is cool. They were so much like the democrats there was no choice in the past.

Just so you know, I dont agree with a number of things Trump is suggesting- such as increasing tariffs (money goes to the govt !!!), but I definitely dont want more syrian refugees until we make sure they arent terrorists (look what happened to France and Germany when they were humanitarian to the syrian refugees), and I like the corporate tax reductions so its worth it to expand my business. Trump is not a panacea- I dont think he can increase jobs by the amount he is suggesting, and he isnt going to be able to do anything but slow down corruption and cronyism

what I meant was that the two major parties are ignoring him because he isnt a threat at all. Libertarians have always gotten a little bit of attention from the media and some support, which they should get actually. Johnsons poll numbers have gone down during this election period also.

I have to say that neither side is scared- you dont see Hillary or Trump disagreeing with Johnson. They ignore him as a serious contender. If Johnson promoted the anti-establishment stance of Trump, he might have a shot in 4 years.

Perhaps if all the people who dont like Hillary as a choice DO vote and do it for Trump, it will change the outcome. Hillary will get her $15/hr minimum wage and her tax hikes and single payer medical through. She will spend more than Obama and let in thousands and thousands of syrian refugees.

The choices are terrible and the arguments from all sides here I find not compelling. Here are some of my observations:

1. Clinton is a dishonest collectivist. In her debate she talked about investing in ... the middle class? Investing here means using stolen money to buy votes from that fraction of the electorate. There was no mention of individual rights and our government formed by us to secure our rights. No principles.

2. Trump is a dishonest, authoritarian, cronyism advocate. Now I don't fault a business person defending themselves against government abuse by lobbying. I don't fault them taking advantage of any technique to protect themselves from "legal" theft. But Trump wants to punish speech by the media and free trade by businesses. That's fascism - you supposedly own your property but the government dictates its use and disposal. This especially applies to the means of production. Like with Clinton, there was no mention of individual rights and our government formed by us to secure our rights. No principles.

3. in the Republican primaries this year, at least two of the rejected candidates mentioned the issues of rights , so there is some visibility.

4. If your vote for either of the two front runners is of no consequence in your state, like in California, making a protest vote is definitely appropriate.

5. Johnson is flawed but much better that the front runners. He has the concept of individual rights. He is not an anarchist as were the LP founders. As governor of NM, he vetoed hundreds of bills that were anti-individual rights and profligate spending. He disappointingly accepts anthropomorphically caused catastrophic global warming that requires government intervention. He is still a reasonable protest vote.

6. And finally, there's the the issue of populating the SCOTUS. History demonstrates that both parties choices have been mixed at best. Eg. property rights and Kelo a decade ago. Free speech for the successful and Citizens United. Roe v Wade and a woman's right to her body. Net Neutrality - precluding classes of service like the post office and express shipping; airplane cabins with two to four classes of service at different price points.

No one except Objectivists seems to get that RIGHTS refer to freedom of action and never the "right" to the product of another persons' labor. This includes food, clothing, shelter, roads, education, health insurance, health care, etc.

So I recommend voting your values including as a protest vote and accepting the sadly lacking best the field has to offer.

Cultures have changed over history and we need ours to. ARI is studying the lessons of history on culture change through education of next generations and the current technology-based best ways of reaching people, especially young people. Let's do all we can to advance our cause. If anyone here has not seen the changes in attitude at ARI over the last few years under Yaron Brook's leadership, I recommend you look again. See the OCON 2016 site and the description of the talk, "Objectivist Movement 2.0" (Not Objectivism 2.0! :-) ).

Another major advancement is the work of Jean Moroney (Binswanger) on the human interaction, communication, respect, listening, objective communication and thinking discipline. Also see the work of Greg Salameri.

And then there's the morphing of "The Undercurrent" into "STRIVE" see http://striveclubs.org for the college context. This has the leadership development focus as well as the intellectual development focus I have been encouraging for decades.

If you want a chance at remaking the Republican party, voting for Trump makes the most sense. If Hillary wins, the mushy moderate “told you so” Republican establishment of Bill Kristol and the other “Never Trumpers” will reassume leadership of the party. If Trump wins, the party is up for grabs, with the mushy moderates on the outside looking in. In that scenario, Rand Paul types have some chance to be empowered. All you are advocating is a Hillary Clinton presidency and a continuation down the path of certain demise.

I am willing to let the rest of your comments implode, as all irrationality does.

I agree with Libertypen and Temlakos. I find Gary Johnson a very wierd person who does not represent my views and I would never vote for him. I will be voting for Trump as he does stand up against the corruption of both parties.

He's right.
The USA is truly on the brink. If Trump loses, the country formerly known as the United States of America will cease to be, and will be the same in name only. By the end of 4 years it will have become a socialist state in totality and the Republican Party as well as all other parties will no longer be strong enough to ever regain a majority. This will lead to the one party system of a dictatorship. We've seen it happen over and over. Goodbye Columbia.

Re: "They arent paying attention to him at all in the media- that tells you something right there." It would tell me a lot if it were true. But it isn't. The Chicago Tribune, a major newspaper, has just endorsed Gary Johnson, joining major newspapers in Richmond, VA, Winston-Salem, NC, and Manchester, NH.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politic...
Johnson and Weld have hosted several Town Halls on major cable news channels. He and Jill Stein are regularly included in network newscasts reporting the latest poll numbers. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party are getting plenty of media attention.

Depends on your definition of "high". Ayn Rand voted for Nixon in 1972, even after he instituted wage and price controls. If your standard is a 100% Objectivist candidate, then it doesn't make sense to even register to vote.

A vote for Trump could mean many things: an anti-establishment message, a party-line vote, a lesser-of-two-evils vote, or actual support of Trump. A vote for Gary Johnson is more clearly an anti-establishment vote and an anti-two-party-system vote.

What happened to setting a high standard and not voting for the lesser of two evils?

He isn't perfect, but he's hardly the "welfare statist" you describe. Way back in 1996 Weld said, "We have to wage an all-out war on fatherlessness and the culture of welfare dependency."
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bill_...

Voting for Trump will not protect you from the ravages of Hillary either, since your vote won't change the outcome. And Hillary is unlikely to get her "progressive" agenda through Congress.