Yeah, "bold" on destroying our Constitutional protections listed in the Bill of Rights.
When did I ever claim I decided which direction to vote based on "boldness"? This isn't Herman Cain Forums.
I think most of it is simpler. He knows he has to get to 15% in the polls to make the debates, and it's extremely hard to make a dent in Hillary's base when they just vote for the candidate that will give them more free stuff and gun control.
Keep on waiting for your liberty-loving knight in shining armor... by the time he comes the country will be way more authoritarian and even people like Johnson will be seen as increasingly radical, so he will be even less successful than Ron Paul.
If you can't see the difference between Johnson and Trump, you are probably stuck in an all-or-nothing thoughtblock. There are many shades of gray between pure liberty and pure tyranny.
Apparently you missed the memo where Trump has openly stated how he wants to abuse government to an unprecedented level in this country. Why don't you spend some of your effort pointing out how the mainstream media doesn't cover how Trump openly plans to abuse government?
Exactly, at the very least we can learn strategy from our incrementalist enemies when it comes to taking away liberty, and use it against them.
The same people who want purist libertarians in office also think that the best way to make progress is to take 50 steps back and then get run over by a Trump bus. I guess at least a Trump bus probably wouldn't run unless you pushed it off a hill.
A lot of people love to talk about how much they love liberty, yet they have no practical ways to move the country in a more libertarian direction.
The country is moving slowly down a slippery slope toward tyranny, and as it does, the Overton window of "acceptable thought" moves in a more anti-liberty direction where our ideas are seen as more and more radical.
There has never been a more openly anti-liberty major candidate than Donald Trump (Hillary Clinton would maybe be 2nd place), and yet when we have a candidate that can at least act as a placeholder to get a way more libertarian party in the mainstream, the "true libertarians" are so concerned with purity that they don't realize they are letting the nation slip deeper into tyranny as they bide their time waiting for a perfect candidate.
The question we should be asking ourselves is: "how do we practically end up with the most pro-liberty nation?" All arguments toward a specific course of action should be in response to that question. I really fail to see at all how "don't support anyone, wait for the next Ron Paul" ends up being the answer to that question, when we are 4 months away from electing a literal tyrant, with nothing even close to libertarian in the public dialogue.
PS: beware of concern troll Trumpkins! They claim not to like anything about Trump but they take every turn they can to defend him while doing their best to quash any alternatives that are remotely libertarian.
I've heard it called "Clump". Has a nice ring to it, and elicits images of clumps of authoritarian orange matter.
+rep, everyone who thinks that Mexicans are inherently criminal should read this:
http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/ (good article written by Ron Unz, who was endorsed by Ron Paul for US Senate)
Voting for Johnson is a liberty choice, even if he isn't a full-fledged liberty candidate. Getting Johnson into the main debates is what we need.
The important thing is making people realize that there are more than two choices of the same thing.
Supporting Gary Johnson is the best strategic choice for liberty, despite his downfalls.
If we ever want to see true liberty candidates succeed in the future, breaking down the 3rd party barrier is progress, and there haven't been two weaker major party candidates to do it against for decades. Future opportunities may not come if we do not grab this one.