He isn't going to govern. His campaigning for the "common good" while denouncing "self interest", and promoting a "balance" between "power and control", are helping the statist-collectivists by endorsing their premises.

You can't argue with them? Getting a disaster "over with sooner" is suicide. A big crash will not help the country, only make those who live more desperate.

I voted for Gary Johnson. I did not vote for Hillary Clinton. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. A is A.

Furthermore, a vote for Gary Johnson does not have the same effect on the outcome as a vote for Hillary Clinton. Example: There are 100 votes for Trump and 91 votes for Hillary. If 5 of these voters switch from Trump to Hillary, she wins by 1 vote. If instead, 5 of those voters switch from Trump to Gary Johnson, Trump wins by 4 votes. Big difference.

If the question is political -- NO
If the question is about Legalization - Yes
Not a real good combination there.

You got it right !!!

For Clinton?
I don't understand how you could even contemplate that.

Yes.
Japan wisely does not allow Mosques in Japan which in effect limits Muslim infiltration. Islam is either a religion of war or an army with religion.

Should vote objectively and not as you want, subjectively. Dictates of conscience can be very non objective and irrational for many people.

I',m not sure he can Anymore...because the ole gray matter has shrunk...

Anti-eminent domain is good, of no additional things and with no less than additional good things with equal strengths coordinating with freedom.Anti-liberty libertarians are not the answers and not welcome.One of the things to question of Donald Trump is he advocating eminent domain. It's like the means makes the end result right and okay.There are additional ways toward professional activity toward people.

1) If you live in a strong blue or red state, such that one of Trump or Clinton will definitely win, would you then vote for Johnson?
2) Would you, like some Objectivists, not vote for Johnson because he represents the LP, which is better extinguished so that liberty can have a true platform? As in, anything that is "libertarian" is anti-liberty?
3) Is Johnson worth giving more air time to, so he can put certain matters before the electorate (fiat money, eminent domain, bankruptcy of the Republic) that are not getting any air time?
Those are the three questions. Q2 and Q3 are addressed in teh linked essay.
.

Gary Johnson is AN answer.
And is THE answer to the question, "Of all the candidates for U.S. president in 2016, who is most pro-freedom?"

I understand that there are a lot of folks who don't want Hillary and they don't want trump but should it really need to be said? Not voting or voting for a third party or a fourth party candidate is a vote for Hillary! How could this be good?

"we're building a party and a movement."
I have this hope of less-gov't Republicans and Democrats going to the LP b/c of the problems people have with people like Trump and Clinton. If that happened, would we be in the majority?

We'd also need someone to keep us applying less-gov't across the board. The vast majority wants to cut gov't except for things we personally agree with. Some people say their for less gov't, but not military spending. I'm for less gov't but I'm open to spending to help the poor. (The selfish reasons for that are a story for another time.) A successful LP would have to allow just enough spending on military, assistance for the poor, education, etc to avoid being too radical but not so much that they lose libertarian-ness. This would be a tightrope. Even it walked that tightrope well, we'd still have to sell people on giving up their research grant, drug-enforcement job, health insurance subsidy, military base that provides jobs, and so on. It's so easy to rationalize. "I'm for cutting gov't across the board, except for things like my cancer research that could affect millions of people."

I dont like Islam, especially the intolerant nature of it. I dont want any more muslims in the USA. The purpose of a country is to keep things the way WE the citizens want them, and we lose that through mass immigration of people who dont want to BECOME Americans.

It takes a lot of time, and the tide has to come in also in terms of a bit economic crash or war that will wake people up to needing a change. I have friends who think that accellerating the crash will just get it over with sooner. I cant really argue with them in the long term, although I really dont want to live through a crash or another big war

But she is confident that she will get rid of Trump at this point and be the first woman president of the USA. She would never get the Green Party people any more than she is going to get the Bernie people.

My comment was directed to the way Hillary has solidified the establishment to enable it to protect itself better. Now that private servers wont be used again, the establishment will protect itself further from letting people know whats going on, and it will become stronger as a result.

Many, if not most of the Muslims who enter a western country, including ours, do not integrate. Instead the become enclaves that even if they are citizens, they believe in Sharia and many of them either become or are radical and dangerous.

"I don't think any Gulchers would vote for Hillary"
I was strongly for Clinton from the beginning all during the primaries up until I thought Johnson had a remote shot. Now that's it's getting closer and there's a chance of Trump winning, A vote for Johnson is not the same as a vote for Clinton. I'm starting to chicken out.

If that's the case, I'm all for it. I was aiming primarily at members of the Gulch in order to impress them of the negative consequences of a Clinton win. I don't think any Gulchers would vote for Hillary, but voting for Johnson is in effect voting for her.

Overcoming resistance often means wearing it down over time. The Libertarian Party has been doing this for 44 years and is now poised to pick up 5% or more of the Presidential vote. We may do even better in future elections, depending upon how things sort out after this one. It takes time, but we're building a party and a movement.

Jill Stein currently has 2% of the vote, mostly at the expense of Hillary. It would be very worthwhile to Hillary if she could recapture a portion of that 2%.

Absolutely, in spite of heavy duty PC against capitalism and freedom, I dont shut up any more. They know where I stand, but I dont trust anyone now that supported Hillary. They dont respect me, and I dont waste time "convincing them"

Education should be ongoing. Straight political action is pretty much worthless when the establishment is so strong and crooked. Look at the efforts Trump is making and the resistance he is getting.