Johnson protest-voters will elect Trump (& destroy the US)

[a plan comes together]

So it looks like millennials are moving from Bernie to Gary Johnson, with 29% saying they will vote for him (compared to 31% for Clinton, 26% for Trump): https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2378

If that holds true, Trump will likely win.
 
I wonder how many millennial Gary Johnson protest-voters actually know what the party platform is: https://www.lp.org/platform. Or... any libertarian for that matter.
If more did, I think there'd be a whole lot less libertarians.

Among some of the most ridiculous things:
1. no environmental regulations
2. get rid of any form of public education
3. dismantle any social safety net (medicare/SS)
4. abolish the income tax/IRS
5. zero interest in foreign policy and protecting our country ("what is Aleppo?")

Johnson trying to position Libertarians between dem and rep as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" sounds sweet to the ears, but it's a mask for conservative extremism. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Reality is, libertarians want a weak 3rd world country government where citizens are powerless and everyone bows to our oligarch-gods.

Please do your research before voting. And know that if enough silly protest votes come in for Johnson, you are effectively handing the country over to Trump because Johnson has a 0% chance of winning.

[seattlecyclone]

Do you actually believe that the last 15 years of war have made our country safer? I sure don't. We've spent billions of dollars and extinguished thousands of innocent lives, and for what? We just replaced Saddam with ISIS. We can take down ISIS and someone else will take their place, feeding off the anti-American energy that exists because we're continuously over there killing their loved ones for no good reason. I voted for Barack Obama because he campaigned on a platform of ending the war. Eight years later and we're still in the thick of it. I expect a Clinton presidency to bring much of the same. Not that Trump would be any better...I'm horrified at the thought of him having his finger on the launch codes. But still...when does it end? At what point can we decide that our troops are no longer needed in the Middle East and we can bring them back to their stated mission of defending America? And more importantly, what is the path from here to there?

[a plan comes together]

Iraq war was a cluster. But it was Bush/Powell who got us in this mess by manufacturing reasons to go to war.
If you've seen any of Trump's comments, he is just itching to show force.
If you don't like war, your choice between the 2 candidates with a real chance to win the election is clear.

[seattlecyclone]

How do you figure Clinton would end the war? She was in charge of foreign policy for half of Obama's presidency, a presidency which did nothing to end our involvement in the Middle East. What makes you think she would diverge in any meaningful way from her predecessor's foreign policy? I swore after the first time I voted for Obama that I was done voting for war. The more votes that the pro-war candidates get, the more we show that we think that this is somehow okay, that it's no big deal if kids are graduating from high school thinking we've always been at war with Eurasia. I'm tired of it. The prospect of a Trump presidency is making me seriously reconsider my pledge, but I'm not on board yet.

[Shane]

Agreed that HRC will probably bring more of the same as far as foreign entanglements goes. She seems to lean, more than I would, towards doing something rather than nothing in foreign policy. However, a Clinton presidency will be an order of magnitude less unpredictable and therefore better, IMO, than if Trump were to somehow get in to office. I'm pretty sure it's better not to, "live in interesting times." I'm going to cast my vote for stability.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the only viable alternative to Clinton is Trump. Gary Johnson, no matter how likable we find him and how much we identify with some of his libertarian values, is NOT going to become POTUS. Ever. Once you accept that fact, the question that remains is: Am I going to vote for the one reasonable, sane candidate in the race, or am I going to throw away my vote by voting for Gary or Jill? For me, that answer is clear. I'll be voting for HRC. She's not perfect, but she's nowhere near as bad as the only other viable alternative.

I've sent a link to the Libertarian Party's 2016 platform to several friends who supported Bernie in the primary but have told me they are planning to vote for Gary in the general election as a protest against HRC. Any former Bernie supporter who actually reads the LP's platform and still is willing to throw away his vote by supporting Gary Johnson is more of a hardcore idealist than I'll ever be. Pragmatism is virtuous in this case, IMO.

[nobodyspecial]

but she's nowhere near as bad as the only other viable alternative.

And there, dear readers, is the true nature of democracy at work.....

[Spork]

It's funny.  I've seen just as many "libertarians will elect Clinton (& and destroy the US)" as I have "...Trump...".

If you're worried, you can go to http://balancedrebellion.com/ and pair up with someone from the other party.

[Shane]

It's funny.  I've seen just as many "libertarians will elect Clinton (& and destroy the US)" as I have "...Trump...".

If you're worried, you can go to http://balancedrebellion.com/ and pair up with someone from the other party.

When my GOP friends tell me they're thinking of voting for Gary I encourage them wholeheartedly.

[davisgang90]

Gary Johnson is a liberal.  He may be the Libertarian candidate, but every time he opens his mouth Democratic talking points come out.

His VP is even worse.

[sol]

Gary Johnson is a liberal.

Generally speaking, liberals don't advocating for destroying the New Deal. 

You may recall from your high school education that American liberalism under FDR created a series of programs designed to act as a social safety net, to counter the privatized corporate shenanigans that led to the Great Depression without restricting business activity.  Liberals did that.  Libertarians (and Conservatives) have been railing against the New Deal ever since.

[Spork]

Gary Johnson is a liberal.

Generally speaking, liberals don't advocating for destroying the New Deal. 

You may recall from your high school education that American liberalism under FDR created a series of programs designed to act as a social safety net, to counter the privatized corporate shenanigans that led to the Great Depression without restricting business activity.  Liberals did that.  Libertarians (and Conservatives) have been railing against the New Deal ever since.

It looks to me as if it was Shroedinger's comment.  Generally speaking, he's a classical liberal.  But he isn't a liberal by modern definition.

[ender]

It's funny.  I've seen just as many "libertarians will elect Clinton (& and destroy the US)" as I have "...Trump...".

If you're worried, you can go to http://balancedrebellion.com/ and pair up with someone from the other party.

This site is hilarious.

[NorCal]

So it looks like millennials are moving from Bernie to Gary Johnson, with 29% saying they will vote for him (compared to 31% for Clinton, 26% for Trump): https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2378

If that holds true, Trump will likely win.
 
I wonder how many millennial Gary Johnson protest-voters actually know what the party platform is: https://www.lp.org/platform. Or... any libertarian for that matter.
If more did, I think there'd be a whole lot less libertarians.

Among some of the most ridiculous things:
1. no environmental regulations
2. get rid of any form of public education
3. dismantle any social safety net (medicare/SS)
4. abolish the income tax/IRS
5. zero interest in foreign policy and protecting our country ("what is Aleppo?")

Johnson trying to position Libertarians between dem and rep as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" sounds sweet to the ears, but it's a mask for conservative extremism. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Reality is, libertarians want a weak 3rd world country government where citizens are powerless and everyone bows to our oligarch-gods.

Please do your research before voting. And know that if enough silly protest votes come in for Johnson, you are effectively handing the country over to Trump because Johnson has a 0% chance of winning.

Why do you insist on telling people how to vote?  It comes across as pompous and obnoxious.

But since we're playing that game, here's my thought.  I think you should vote for Trump.  Because if you don't, you'll destroy the country.  Did my well reasoned internet argument prove how wrong you are yet?

[hoping2retire35]

I am going to go out on a limb here, and say based on that APCT started this one and a certain other thread he'll be voting for Hillary in November. I could be wrong.

[davisgang90]

Gary Johnson is a liberal.

Generally speaking, liberals don't advocating for destroying the New Deal. 

You may recall from your high school education that American liberalism under FDR created a series of programs designed to act as a social safety net, to counter the privatized corporate shenanigans that led to the Great Depression without restricting business activity.  Liberals did that.  Libertarians (and Conservatives) have been railing against the New Deal ever since.

That is from the libertarian platform.  I'm saying Johnson keeps saying liberal things when he talks.  Weld even more so.

[sailinlight]

If anyone thinks that electing a president they don't like will "destroy the US", then you must not have much faith in the country to begin with.  I would argue that if a president which wins an election could possibly destroy the country, then the system we have has failed and it probably needs to be destroyed anyway.  Why do all the well-reasoned, rational discussions and members here get all crazy and alarmist when it comes to politics?  Wouldn't it be a more productive use of your time to think of ways to thrive and profit no matter which way politics goes?

I am fairly confident that you could have a dart throwing monkey make random decisions as the president for four years and the country would come out just fine.  I suggest people take a step back and think rationally.

[NorCal]

If anyone thinks that electing a president they don't like will "destroy the US", then you must not have much faith in the country to begin with.  I would argue that if a president which wins an election could possibly destroy the country, then the system we have has failed and it probably needs to be destroyed anyway.  Why do all the well-reasoned, rational discussions and members here get all crazy and alarmist when it comes to politics?  Wouldn't it be a more productive use of your time to think of ways to thrive and profit no matter which way politics goes?

I am fairly confident that you could have a dart throwing monkey make random decisions as the president for four years and the country would come out just fine.  I suggest people take a step back and think rationally.

I agree completely.  In case it didn't come across in my post, I was mocking the mentality that the "other candidate" will destroy the country.  The hyperbole and hysteria from people on both sides is ridiculous.

On a somewhat related topic, I actually made a somewhat brilliant post of Facebook about a month ago.  I simply said that I don't care who people are voting for.  I would just unfriend anyone who routinely posted nasty things about politics on either side.  Surprisingly, most of my friends stopped posting about politics.  I only had to unfriend two people.

[fa]

If anyone thinks that electing a president they don't like will "destroy the US", then you must not have much faith in the country to begin with.  I would argue that if a president which wins an election could possibly destroy the country, then the system we have has failed and it probably needs to be destroyed anyway.  Why do all the well-reasoned, rational discussions and members here get all crazy and alarmist when it comes to politics?  Wouldn't it be a more productive use of your time to think of ways to thrive and profit no matter which way politics goes?

I am fairly confident that you could have a dart throwing monkey make random decisions as the president for four years and the country would come out just fine.  I suggest people take a step back and think rationally.

+1.  Take a deep breath.  Everything will be just fine.  The system is set up for stability and works well from that perspective.  I think the party faithful are watching too much TV.  I recommend unplugging the TV until November.  Better yet, don't plug it back in after November.

[Shane]

Take a deep breath.  Everything will be just fine.  The system is set up for stability and works well from that perspective.  I think the party faithful are watching too much TV.  I recommend unplugging the TV until November.  Better yet, don't plug it back in after November.

^+1, I fucking hate TV. For the past 25 years I've only briefly lived in a place that had a television, and it's been wonderful.

Right now, we're temporarily living with relatives who have a big-screen TV in their living room that comes on in the early morning and stays on all. day. long. until the last person goes to sleep at night. I hate it! I can't see how people can live like that.

Luckily, it's just temporary for us, and there are plenty of upsides to our current living arrangement that make tolerating the constant noise of the television tolerable.

[Metric Mouse]

If anyone thinks that electing a president they don't like will "destroy the US", then you must not have much faith in the country to begin with.  I would argue that if a president which wins an election could possibly destroy the country, then the system we have has failed and it probably needs to be destroyed anyway.  Why do all the well-reasoned, rational discussions and members here get all crazy and alarmist when it comes to politics?  Wouldn't it be a more productive use of your time to think of ways to thrive and profit no matter which way politics goes?

I am fairly confident that you could have a dart throwing monkey make random decisions as the president for four years and the country would come out just fine.  I suggest people take a step back and think rationally.

It's hilarious to hear some people remark that the current POTUS can't accomplish anything due to congressional obstruction, and then turn around and say the next POTUS is going to 'destroy the country' (whatever the hell that means).

On the plus side, I would totally vote for a dart throwing monkey. Even in the worst case scenario, America will still be the richest and most powerful country in the world, without question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSaWuLiV4mw

[nobodyspecial]

It's hilarious to hear some people remark that the current POTUS can't accomplish anything due to congressional obstruction, and then turn around and say the next POTUS is going to 'destroy the country' (whatever the hell that means).

You can have a lot of impact without congressional approval:
You could announce that the USA wouldn't defend NATO allies in the Baltic unless they paid
You could call upon loyal Americans to rise up and do something about these <ETHNIC> in their midst
You can say that you are going to renegotiate Treasury bonds.

No approval necessary but necessarily a great outcome.

[Metric Mouse]

Great impact, perhaps?, but still not "destroy the country".

[a plan comes together]

For the "relax" crowd - all it really takes is one short-tempered, bruised-ego response to a foreign leader to lead us into a nuclear war. And if that doesn't happen, complete control of the House, Senate, Supreme Court and Presidency will put domestic policy back about 50 years.

But it's cool... there's always Canada.

[Cwadda]

Can someone please explain why voting for Gary Johnson equals throwing away your vote?

[seattlecyclone]

Can someone please explain why voting for Gary Johnson equals throwing away your vote?

It's hard for me to answer this question with a straight face. You're expressing your preference with a third-party vote, same as if you vote for any other candidate. If said third-party candidate gets a small level of support, the major parties are free to continue ignoring the issues that party advocates with impunity. If the third-party candidate gains a large level of support, and especially if this third-party support adds up to more than the difference between the frontrunners, some party should find it in their best interest to adopt some of the third-party positions to gain more votes in the next election. This can be a good long-term outcome for people who care more about the issues advocated by the third party than whatever differences exist between the two major parties.

Of course, there's always the short-term risk that voting third-party could cause your less-favorite of the two major party candidates to become elected. Consider how much you fear this compared to how much you hope one or both major parties would adopt some of the positions advocated by your preferred third party candidate.

[NorCal]

Can someone please explain why voting for Gary Johnson equals throwing away your vote?

It's not.  It's your vote.

Although to be perfectly honest, if you don't live in a swing state, your presidential vote doesn't matter.

[ender]

Can someone please explain why voting for Gary Johnson equals throwing away your vote?

It's not.  It's your vote.

Although to be perfectly honest, if you don't live in a swing state, your presidential vote doesn't matter.

Realistically, even if you do, it's unlikely the election will come down to your single vote.

[fa]

For the "relax" crowd - all it really takes is one short-tempered, bruised-ego response to a foreign leader to lead us into a nuclear war. And if that doesn't happen, complete control of the House, Senate, Supreme Court and Presidency will put domestic policy back about 50 years.

But it's cool... there's always Canada.

I know of no historical fact where a short tempered bruised ego started a nuclear war.  I am not sure where that came from. 

I don't know how the chips will fall in Congress.  As for the Supreme Court, the only vacancy is Scalia, and he was very conservative.  A republican nomination would not change the current balance of power.  I would imagine that Ginsberg, who doesn't even try to appear judicially neutral, would postpone a retirement until after a Trump pres.

As far as Canada is concerned, the threat of moving there is uttered by a bunch of people every 4 years.  Apparently without much action.   I have not heard of a major migration to the north, regardless of who wins the election that year.

So, from the "relax" crowd, join us to have a good time.  It sure beats getting all worked up.  We'd love to have you.  I, for one, will not change my life whether it is President Hillary or President Trump.  I plan to ignore either one, and have done so for the last 2 administrations.  It enhances your happiness.

[Jrr85]

Gary Johnson is a liberal.

Generally speaking, liberals don't advocating for destroying the New Deal. 

You may recall from your high school education that American liberalism under FDR created a series of programs designed to act as a social safety net, to counter the privatized corporate shenanigans that led to the Great Depression without restricting business activity.  Liberals did that.  Libertarians (and Conservatives) have been railing against the New Deal ever since.

You had a really bad high school History class if this is how the new deal was taught to you. At the very least, there were some pretty big Supreme Court cases that should have been discussed that would have made you realize there were some pretty big restrictions of business activity being put in place.

[nobodyspecial]

As far as Canada is concerned, the threat of moving there is uttered by a bunch of people every 4 years.  Apparently without much action.   I have not heard of a major migration to the north, regardless of who wins the election that year.

We were looking forward to it.
You know how you guys got all those scientists with Jewish names in the 1930s?
We were rather hoping for a similar bonus of lots of doctors/scientists/engineers with a similar aversion to pork.

[RangerOne]

It's hilarious to hear some people remark that the current POTUS can't accomplish anything due to congressional obstruction, and then turn around and say the next POTUS is going to 'destroy the country' (whatever the hell that means).

You can have a lot of impact without congressional approval:
You could announce that the USA wouldn't defend NATO allies in the Baltic unless they paid
You could call upon loyal Americans to rise up and do something about these <ETHNIC> in their midst
You can say that you are going to renegotiate Treasury bonds.

No approval necessary but necessarily a great outcome.

If Trump tried to back out of NATO I would hope the two parties would gladly find a way to impeach him...

[TexasRunner]

Posting to follow. 

[BDWW]

We nominated the most dislikes candidates in history, and now people are saying they won't vote for them...

Wh~Wh~Whaaaa

If you want people to get behind your candidate don't nominate  (dishonest bitch/ ignorant jackass). If you do, don't come around whining for people to support your  (dishonest bitch/ ignorant jackass).

[Jrr85]

For the "relax" crowd - all it really takes is one short-tempered, bruised-ego response to a foreign leader to lead us into a nuclear war. And if that doesn't happen, complete control of the House, Senate, Supreme Court and Presidency will put domestic policy back about 50 years.

But it's cool... there's always Canada.

He won't have complete control of teh House, senate, and Supreme Court.  There are still political divisions within parties.  That's why Obamacare is the dysfunctional, pork laden, cronyist piece of shit legislation that it is.  They couldn't get singlepayer through even though they didn't need a single republican vote.  They couldn't even get a public option through so that there would be a builtin infrastructure to relatively seamlessly transition into single payer.   

If Trump were to win, he'd have an even less unified party than Obama had. 

[BoonDogle]

Did I hear someone say there is a dart throwing monkey on the ballet?  Finally, someone I can vote for!

[Spork]

Did I hear someone say there is a dart throwing monkey on the ballet?  Finally, someone I can vote for!

In some states you may have to write him in.  I believe his name is "Mr Tinkles".

[Johnez]

I really hope this is the case OP. Then we might get back to business as usual and pick decent candidates again.

[Jeremy E.]

If you align most with the libertarian party, and want a libertarian to have a shot at winning, maybe not this election, but eventually. Then voting for Johnson is not throwing away your vote. If he gets 8% of the vote this year, the libertarian party gains a lot of attention and will have a better probability for libertarians to be elected in future elections.

Also, the president doesn't have a magic stick that he can wave to pass whatever he wants through congress. He can at best veto bills that get through congress.
I believe a Johnson presidency would mean many vetoed bills that would increase spending, less military involvement in foreign countries, reduction or complete removal of the NSA spying on US citizens without due process, and for him to sign anything that would give us more individual freedoms(or less laws) including making abortions more available, less gun laws, legalizing marijuana and potentially other drugs, gay rights, etc. I also expect him to be more open to each political party and for them to be more open to him, for instance, not veto a bill just because it's not from his political party, or for congress to meet with the potential supreme court justices that he nominates.

[Spork]

If you align most with the libertarian party, and want a libertarian to have a shot at winning, maybe not this election, but eventually. Then voting for Johnson is not throwing away your vote. If he gets 8% of the vote this year, the libertarian party gains a lot of attention and will have a better probability for libertarians to be elected in future elections.

Also, the president doesn't have a magic stick that he can wave to pass whatever he wants through congress. He can at best veto bills that get through congress.
I believe a Johnson presidency would mean many vetoed bills that would increase spending, less military involvement in foreign countries, reduction or complete removal of the NSA spying on US citizens without due process, and for him to sign anything that would give us more individual freedoms(or less laws) including making abortions more available, less gun laws, legalizing marijuana and potentially other drugs, gay rights, etc. I also expect him to be more open to each political party and for them to be more open to him, for instance, not veto a bill just because it's not from his political party, or for congress to meet with the potential supreme court justices that he nominates.

I agree with pretty much everything there except what I bolded.  I agree that what you wrote SHOULD be true but... executive order seems to have become quite the magic stick and gets more and more magical with every president.

[hoping2retire35]

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/chris-kattan-14686/character/mr-peepers-90141

He's got my vote!

[Jeremy E.]

If you align most with the libertarian party, and want a libertarian to have a shot at winning, maybe not this election, but eventually. Then voting for Johnson is not throwing away your vote. If he gets 8% of the vote this year, the libertarian party gains a lot of attention and will have a better probability for libertarians to be elected in future elections.

Also, the president doesn't have a magic stick that he can wave to pass whatever he wants through congress. He can at best veto bills that get through congress.
I believe a Johnson presidency would mean many vetoed bills that would increase spending, less military involvement in foreign countries, reduction or complete removal of the NSA spying on US citizens without due process, and for him to sign anything that would give us more individual freedoms(or less laws) including making abortions more available, less gun laws, legalizing marijuana and potentially other drugs, gay rights, etc. I also expect him to be more open to each political party and for them to be more open to him, for instance, not veto a bill just because it's not from his political party, or for congress to meet with the potential supreme court justices that he nominates.

I agree with pretty much everything there except what I bolded.  I agree that what you wrote SHOULD be true but... executive order seems to have become quite the magic stick and gets more and more magical with every president.

Gary Johnson has said that the only executive order he has planned is preventing the NSAs satellites from spying on US citizens without due process. He believes that recent presidents have been unconstitutional with their executive powers and he would leave more to Congress the way that the Constitution intended.

[Jack]

I agree with pretty much everything there except what I bolded.  I agree that what you wrote SHOULD be true but... executive order seems to have become quite the magic stick and gets more and more magical with every president.

Gary Johnson has said that the only executive order he has planned is preventing the NSAs satellites from spying on US citizens without due process. He believes that recent presidents have been unconstitutional with their executive powers and he would leave more to Congress the way that the Constitution intended.

Electing Johnson would result in reducing the power of executive orders, via his own voluntary action. Attempting to elect Johnson and ending up with Trump would also result in reducing the power of executive orders, via limits involuntarily imposed upon Trump by Congress and/or the Supreme Court and potentially with a lot of collateral damage. Either way, if your goal is to reduce the power of executive orders then voting for Johnson is the right move.

[Jeremy E.]

I agree with pretty much everything there except what I bolded.  I agree that what you wrote SHOULD be true but... executive order seems to have become quite the magic stick and gets more and more magical with every president.

Gary Johnson has said that the only executive order he has planned is preventing the NSAs satellites from spying on US citizens without due process. He believes that recent presidents have been unconstitutional with their executive powers and he would leave more to Congress the way that the Constitution intended.

Electing Johnson would result in reducing the power of executive orders, via his own voluntary action. Attempting to elect Johnson and ending up with Trump would also result in reducing the power of executive orders, via limits involuntarily imposed upon Trump by Congress and/or the Supreme Court and potentially with a lot of collateral damage. Either way, if your goal is to reduce the power of executive orders then voting for Johnson is the right move.

I'm voting for him because he's socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but this is just a bonus

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I don't have any other options for my vote when both parties have failed to nominate a worthwhile candidate.  I don't know of any other way to communicate that message to the parties.  I'm playing the long game, the next four years are going to be a cluster regardless of your personal politics.  If we can get even one of the parties to budge towards a moderate platform then it'll be mission accomplished.  Voting along party lines regardless of the candidate has led to a radicalization, doing it again doesn't seem like it would fix it.

I don't think you need to worry about it electing Trump though, I feel like about 25% of democrats are excited about voting for HRC.  Probably another 50% will reluctantly do so.  No actual republicans are excited about Trump.  Maybe 50% will reluctantly vote for him.  The rest of the people you see supporting him are just random folks who weren't all that likely to vote before, so it's tough to say.  I figure the libertarian vote will show the republicans who didn't vote for Trump and the Green vote will show Democrats that didn't vote for HRC.

To claim that protest votes would cost HRC an election when she had a 10-20 point lead after the conventions is...really not understanding what the problem is.  Don't blame the voters.

[tonysemail]

the commander in chief said the same-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-obama-dont-vote-thats-vote-trump-161126697.html

“If you don't vote, that's a vote for Trump,” Obama stressed in a new line of attack during a radio interview with Steve Harvey that aired Wednesday morning. “If you vote for a third-party candidate who's got no chance to win, that's a vote for Trump.”

[Jeremy E.]

the commander in chief said the same-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-obama-dont-vote-thats-vote-trump-161126697.html

“If you don't vote, that's a vote for Trump,” Obama stressed in a new line of attack during a radio interview with Steve Harvey that aired Wednesday morning. “If you vote for a third-party candidate who's got no chance to win, that's a vote for Trump.”

Obama is a Democrat, believe it or not, that makes him biased,
The truth is, Johnson takes votes almost equally from both sides of the table, in my experience many Johnson supporters I know were Sanders supporters who are mad at the political tricks that hillaries campaign used to shut him out.

[Jack]

in my experience many Johnson supporters I know were Sanders supporters who are mad at the political tricks that her campaign used to shut him out. (which makes no sense to me, as Sanders and Johnson are complete opposites on about 50% of their policies)

I'm a fan of both Sanders and Johnson, and it's because of the other 50% of their policies.

[Schrodengerscat]

So it looks like millennials are moving from Bernie to Gary Johnson, with 29% saying they will vote for him (compared to 31% for Clinton, 26% for Trump): https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2378

If that holds true, Trump will likely win.
 
I wonder how many millennial Gary Johnson protest-voters actually know what the party platform is: https://www.lp.org/platform. Or... any libertarian for that matter.
If more did, I think there'd be a whole lot less libertarians.

Among some of the most ridiculous things:
1. no environmental regulations
2. get rid of any form of public education
3. dismantle any social safety net (medicare/SS)
4. abolish the income tax/IRS
5. zero interest in foreign policy and protecting our country ("what is Aleppo?")

Johnson trying to position Libertarians between dem and rep as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" sounds sweet to the ears, but it's a mask for conservative extremism. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Reality is, libertarians want a weak 3rd world country government where citizens are powerless and everyone bows to our oligarch-gods.

Please do your research before voting. And know that if enough silly protest votes come in for Johnson, you are effectively handing the country over to Trump because Johnson has a 0% chance of winning.

Whereas now we get to "bow" to our government "gods". Yeah, soooo much better. Glad we covered that.

Actually, yes, I have reviewed the platform, and was very strongly for it with Ron Paul. Less so with Johnson because I am not sure if he is actually behind the platform. Ron Paul has always been the "black sheep", so it was clear he believed what he preached.

[FreeWheel]

The Republican party has been massively fractured, and will never be the same. You have the eGOP, the true conservatives, and then the alt right. Not much unity on vision between them.

Now (and the near future) is the best time to vote 3rd party if you'd like to upheave the two party lock on things.

IL is in the bag for Hill, so I'm good. Gary will likely get my vote just to help make a statement to the two party's that they aren't the only game in town.

[a plan comes together]

the commander in chief said the same-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-obama-dont-vote-thats-vote-trump-161126697.html

“If you don't vote, that's a vote for Trump,” Obama stressed in a new line of attack during a radio interview with Steve Harvey that aired Wednesday morning. “If you vote for a third-party candidate who's got no chance to win, that's a vote for Trump.”

Obama is a Democrat, believe it or not, that makes him biased,
The truth is, Johnson takes votes almost equally from both sides of the table, in my experience many Johnson supporters I know were Sanders supporters who are mad at the political tricks that hillaries campaign used to shut him out.

Then they are cutting off their nose to spite their face:
1. Sanders is the exact opposite from Johnson. Sanders wants much bigger govt., Johnson weak-to-zero government.
2. How did Hillary's campaign shut Sanders out? By beating him by millions of votes? Well, yes, that's what an election primary is. They shouldn't confuse the DNC's preference of a victor and Hillary stomping Sanders for some sort of Hillary screwing Bernie over theory.