Voted

[wmenorr67]

So will I be throwing my vote away if I vote for Johnson?

[Ron]

I would agree with you on GW.  The main point in favour of trump isn't what he says, it's who he answers to- his only constituency is voters, literally.  The rest of the centres of power HATE him

Populists can be a double edged sword.

The groundswell of support for Trump as anti establishment candidate is encouraging.

I'm just not sure that what the majority of voters want really aligns with what I would consider best for the country. If the voters are mostly idiots and the populist is driven by their desires...

Breaking the death grip The Establishment has on the halls of power does seem worth the risks of electing Trump.

Trump is, to use an in vogue term, a disruption. The system desperately needs a disruption and Trump is the only one offering that as a possibility.

Of course he may get into office and it will just be business as usual, hard to tell how it will go down.

[Ron]

So will I be throwing my vote away if I vote for Johnson?

If the risks of a Trump presidency are the same or greater in your eyes than the risks of a Hillary presidency then I would say no.

I'm coming to terms with the idea that Trump may very well be a big disruption to the status quo and in some small fashion damage the system. That alone may be worth the risk and the vote.

If Trump gets elected and sticks to his guns I expect the establishment to kill him before he makes it through his first two years.

[wmenorr67]

No matter who winds up winning, Hillary or Trump, nothing is going to change.

[Perd Hapley]

No matter who winds up winning, Hillary or Trump, nothing is going to change.

Will voting for Johnson make a difference?

[Marnoot]

I'm of the opinion that if a third-party candidate, be it Johnson or an independent,  gets any electoral votes this election that it will make a difference for the next election. The difference being people starting to take "third-party" candidates more seriously. There's a chance an independent will do just that in Utah this year (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/17/utah-poll-independent-evan-mcmullin-ties-trump.html).

As for a vote for third party being a vote for Hillary, my lefty co-workers insist if I vote for a third party I'm voting for Trump.

[Scout26]

As for a vote for third party being a vote for Hillary, my lefty co-workers insist if I vote for a third party I'm voting for Trump.

Depends on what state you are in.   Here in Illinois, everyone says that a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Hillary.

[Marnoot]

By poll-data it's a just about a statistical 3-way tie in Utah between Trump (30%), McMullin (I) (29%), and Clinton (28%). Results will be interesting. I'm not voting for Clinton, I'm not voting for Trump.

I'm not 100% compatible with McMullin's views either, but it's a lot closer match for me than Johnson. In the meantime, I'll continue to smile and nod when one person tells me my vote is really a vote for Clinton, while another tells me it's really a vote for Trump.

As for "It's the Supreme Court, stupid!", that's far from a sure thing. This sums up some of my concern on that matter:

And Trump might, indeed, appoint someone better. Might. His list of potential Supreme Court nominees, released under duress in May, is promising, if hardly foolproof. But it is also provisional. There simply is no reason to believe that the same Trump who has contradicted himself on amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion, NATO, and much else, will stick to his assurances on this. Recall that this is the same man who — in February — suggested nominating his sister, who once wrote a decision defending partial-birth abortion.

I'll acknowledge that a Clinton presidency guarantees a liberal court, and a Trump one is at least moderately likely to be less liberal. But it's just not enough for nose-holding to be sufficient to give him my vote.

[RoadKingLarry]

Depends on what state you are in.   Here in Illinois, everyone says that a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Hillary.

I thought all votes in Illinois were for Hillary...

[Marnoot]

I thought all votes in Illinois were for Hillary...

She hasn't been pandering to the dead as much as she should. The recently-and-not-so-recently-deceased are a key demographic for Democrats in Illinois, but they're a neglected one. When's the last time they passed a bill favored by the dead?

[HankB]

I voted for GWB twice. As a thought experiment lets say he is running against Hillary this time around, pretending it's allowed.

In good conscience I could not vote for him. Knowing what I know now I realize he is as detrimental to our nation as Hillary.

Not a big fan of GWB, but think SCOTUS justice Sam Alito vs. (potential) SCOTUS justices Barack Hussein Obama or Chuck Schumer.

With Trump, there is a chance of getting a good SCOTUS pick. It's not a lock, it's not a sure thing, but it's a reasonable chance, especially with his published "short list" of potential nominees.

With Hillary . . . think of nominees who'd be right at home in the Soviet Politbureau.

[Ron]

Not a big fan of GWB, but think SCOTUS justice Sam Alito vs. (potential) SCOTUS justices Barack Hussein Obama or Chuck Schumer.

With Trump, there is a chance of getting a good SCOTUS pick. It's not a lock, it's not a sure thing, but it's a reasonable chance, especially with his published "short list" of potential nominees.

With Hillary . . . think of nominees who'd be right at home in the Soviet Politbureau.

Oh I get it, been voting that way my whole life. The GOP has been counting on me voting that way and even tossed guys like me a bone occasionally.

Illinois is a lost cause so my presidential vote is primarily symbolic.

I may still vote for Trump but I'm just tired of "owning" my votes for guys I despise because they're running against someone I despise more. Then there is the moral component. Bush really kicked off the depose, break and destroy the middle east and I helped put the guy in office. There's a lot of death and carnage we've brought to the region as well as to our troops. I'm still assessing the risk of a Trump presidency in that light.

[Fitz]

Will voting for Johnson make a difference?

if you live in a state where it's not close, it's dumb NOT to vote for the libertarian candidate.

Hitting that magic threshold opens up automatic ballot access and FEC money.

That would cause them to have much greater resources to get support, and potentially shift the balance of power

[sumpnz]

if you live in a state where it's not close, it's dumb NOT to vote for the libertarian candidate.

Hitting that magic threshold opens up automatic ballot access and FEC money.

That would cause them to have much greater resources to get support, and potentially shift the balance of power

Though, do we really want to shift the balance of power towards a party that is basically mostly Democrats that want drugs legalized?

If the "L"ibertarian party were "l"ibertarian I could support them much more readily than now when they're really the Liberaltarian party.

[Perd Hapley]

If the "L"ibertarian party were "l"ibertarian I could support them much more readily than now when they're really the Liberaltarian party.

"We are 100% in support of civil rights for everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, gender orientation, boxers or briefs, Chex or Rice Krispies, Tastes Great or Less Filling.

Unless you're not born yet. Then FU."

[HankB]

if you live in a state where it's not close, it's dumb NOT to vote for the libertarian candidate.

Even when the lib is a druggie with a running mate who has an anti-gun history?

I don't think so.

[Ron]

But the L's are for freedom! Freedom from borders and common culture!

Freedom to come into the United States illegally, unfettered.

Freedom to use our resources, take jobs, refuse to assimilate and bring third world banana republic voting patterns to our country!

Embrace the freedom of demographic destruction of your country!

Let freedom ring!



  

[KD5NRH]

And honestly, I'm not sure how we are going to cut bureaucracy short of losing a war, at this point.

We don't need to lose a war.  Just DC.

What happens if all 50 states secede?

[Fitz]

Though, do we really want to shift the balance of power towards a party that is basically mostly Democrats that want drugs legalized?

If the "L"ibertarian party were "l"ibertarian I could support them much more readily than now when they're really the Liberaltarian party.

You're right. we should keep trying to shift the balance of power towards republicans that are basically democrats, instead

[Fitz]

They're also the only ones still talking about drastic reductions in the size and scope of federal government.

But hey. Weed is bad so let's keep pushing for republicans that have betrayed us time and time again

And apparently, we will even support a big government liberal with a history of supporting the Clintons, as long as he says he'll build a wall

[Perd Hapley]

And apparently, we will even support a big government liberal with a history of supporting the Clintons, as long as he says he'll build a wall

A candidate that supported the Clintons is bad, but it's better than an actual Clinton, so...

[Fitz]

A candidate that supported the Clintons is bad, but it's better than an actual Clinton, so...

you know what's even better than THAT?

A guy who wants to reduce the size of federal government but also likes weed.

[makattak]

you know what's even better than THAT?

A guy who wants to reduce the size of federal government but also likes weed.

I have to point out that it's generally not the weed that prevents many conservatives from voting libertarian. It is an "Oh and also" kind of issue, but the most important objections are either unfettered murder of the unborn and/or unfettered immigration (in the face of a massive welfare state).

[HeroHog]

I'm a alt radical conservative libertarian myself...

[Perd Hapley]

I have to point out that it's generally not the weed that prevents many conservatives from voting libertarian. It is an "Oh and also" kind of issue, but the most important objections are either unfettered murder of the unborn and/or unfettered immigration (in the face of a massive welfare state).

I agree that the latter two issues are more important, but I don't know if the issues are the most important obstacles. Aside from conservatives' reluctance to "throw my vote away," I still think Libertarians have an even bigger tendency to alienate and denigrate their (potential) conservative voter base than does the GOP. The Libertarians are more likely to insult or vilify us for supposedly hating homosexuals, imposing our morality on others, and generally being kill-joys. Not that I'm saying Libertarians must agree with us on everything before we'll vote that party. I do think there's a hostile tone that the libertarians could tone down a mite. But I've said all this before.

Also, brand loyalty is a big obstacle.

FWIW, I'm for legalizing all the drugs. I also don't get why prostitution is only legal if you film it...