I don't really know where the money goes in these campaigns, but sanders and hildebeast each spent 200 million+-. Trump spent about $5o million. Jen bush about $100 million. Gary Johnson might get $10m from Koch brothers For Gary Johnson to actually win, it would take more than half of the voters, and I think it will take much more education of the voters to appreciate freedom before he could get the votes. Unfortunately

I think Gary Johnson would have a chance if he'd get out there and campaign with the big guys (and gal). I believe there are quite a lot of like minded people that could get him elected. They are just quiet and believe they can't effect change. On the other hand, I could be speaking out of my bottom end. Just my thoughts.

I will vote for Gary Johnson, as I did last year. When asked who I will vote for, I am not afraid to say Gary Johnson. I'm then asked who he is. My question is why is it Gary Johnson isn't in the public eye more? I use to help the Republicans with their " get out the vote" campaign in California. I have not heard anything like that for Gary Johnson.

I do think that in this election, there are more important issues that face us for the next 4 years. Things like the deficit spending, money printing by the fed, and the horrible takeover of medical care by Obama and potentially Hillary. Not to mention the asset seizures as a part of the war on drugs. Not to minimize eminent domain abuses, but we are in a lifeboat situation in our country and we have to plug the largest leaks in the boat first.

Thanks.

It's worse than hearsay. It's deliberate mudslinging by Trump.

If it turns out to be Trump vs Clinton the question is whether the risks of Trump in all kinds of realms are as bad as the certainty of Clinton. The frightening prospect of having to vote for Trump to try to keep Clinton out is not expressible in turns of the "best" candidate.

The power of eminent domain has become legal in broader circumstances over time. So have regulatory powers taking private property rights through restrictions while leaving the owner with the deed and the tax bill. Policies of exploiting these powers more intensively depend on who is president. It matters a lot.

Multiple candidates can lead to paradoxical results in any circumstances. See H.W. Lewis, Why Flip a Coin? The Art and Science of Good Decisions, Chap 11 "Voting".

This is the realm of theory and strategies of voting apart from what the political philosophies are.

Great businessman? Come on! He's been bankrupt 7 times. He's a reality TV star who was HANDED $30,000,000 by his dad when he graduated from Wharton. This guy is James Taggart. He's NO Hank Rearden.

What you are giving is an implicit acceptance of the unethical Federal ownership of the remainder of the land. There could be other things too, but we are making up a thought experiment.

To address your specific example above, making a deal with the government to give 10% of the land back to the people would not violate the original principle, as this deal is accomplishing what the principle stood for. The original deal which first allowed the land to be owned by the government was the one that violated the principle. What must also be considered, however, is what we are giving in return for the 10%. This is often where principles get sacrificed.

He is polling well. 11 percent!
http://patch.com/new-hampshire/concor...

It doesn't matter the scenario, if the deal violates your principles, there can be nothing worth sacrificing those principles. The reason is because politicians can always provide an excuse why THIS deal must be made or else the sky will fall. I point to the Patriot Act as exhibit A. It was easy to say we HAVE to violate the 4th Amendment for security of the nation. What is hard is standing up for principles in that situation, that these rights should never be violated.

Lets imagine a thought experiment. Imagine the absurd situation that the Federal Government owned 85.4% of the state of Nevada. We believe as a matter of principle that this is absurd and that, at most the government should only own the ground related to performing legitimate government functions.

Now in this situation would an agreement to sell or otherwise distribute 10% of the Government held land to private individuals be acceptable or should we stand on principles and not make that deal -- insisting on all or nothing.

And get nothing but be firm on our stand. The left is always willing to take less than it wants, but it keeps coming back over and over.

An observation; the 'rulers' are using the blatent demoncrap communists as a tool against a third party ever running. The fear of either to get 'elected' is greater than the validity of a third parties chance of breaking up the repulicans. A vote against the repulicans 'is' a vote for the demoncraps and see what that is! Even tho' both parties are being controlled by the same rulers, Cruz with his involvement with the CFR and NAFTA is evidence of this. Gingrich stated recently that the gop does not like Trump because he does not belong to any secret society or club which makes him uncontrolable, Newt belongs to CFR and bohiemium grove, many old pic's of him there

I disagree with this quite vehemently. When an official gets elected, he is there to represent the principles of those who gave him their vote. Or at least, to represent the principles he stated he held while running. Therefore, before anything else, his job MUST be to stand firm for those principles, before any deal making. If a deal violates those principles, there can be no deal, if he is staying true to the values he stated.The problem for over a century has been too many deals, allowing for too many new laws, regulations, and growth of government. What we need is someone who recognizes that the problem is government itself, not the right people in office. I don't sense that understanding from Trump. He seems to be saying that he will bring the right people to fix the problem.

Partly in reply to Mamaemma's recent comments from three days ago, but also introducing some new thoughts:

With all due respect, Mamaemma: you cannot know that the woman in the checkout line was an undocumented immigrant. ("Illegal alien" is a disrespectful term. And as a matter of historical fact, Ayn Rand once--with premeditation--violated U.S. immigration law when she came to the U.S. and overstayed her Visa. Keep that in mind.)

So, you had an emotional reaction to someone who you THOUGHT was undocumented, who was using an EBT card at a store. (How would you know the person was an undocumented immigrant???) Furthermore: You got angry when she laughed at you, in the parking lot. You don't know WHY she laughed. She might have been a legal immigrant or even a natural-born U.S. citizen, and she MIGHT have assumed, (though you never mentioned her race or ethnicity), "Oh, here is another racist, wondering if I am 'legal', and shooting disapproving looks at me, just because I look 'Mexican' and use the EBT card that I am legally entitled to!!"

I am certain that there are U.S. citizens who "look like" undocumented immigrants, and who get "Looks" from "Real Americans" (so called) every time they use a legally-obtained EBT card or use other social services.

Do you get as emotionally worked up when a "citizen" uses an EBT card? (And how would you KNOW who is and who isn't a citizen??)

One thing I like to point out to readers of "Atlas Shrugged" is that Rand's primary villains were not poor people who demanded and used "food stamps". Rand's greatest contempt was for wealthy crony capitalists: such as James Taggart and Orren Boyle.

Anyone who carefully listens to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama can discern that they would have more contempt for Orren Boyle and James Taggart, (the looting crony capitalists), than they would for Hank Rearden and Dagney Taggart (the productive rich who do not ask for hand-outs). It is in the best interests of crony capitalists among Republicans to argue hard that "Progressives" never make those kinds of distinctions. (Progressives may be sloppy and imprecise in their thinking when they draw distinctions, but they DO draw distinctions.) Notice that Sanders and Warren aim their criticisms at "Wall Street" businesses, not "Main Street" businesses--because WALL STREET has more crony capitalists than Main Street has!!

The crony capitalists who are within the Republican Party play Objectivists and other libertarians for fools. (Of course, the Democrats have their own crony capitalists, too.) They get the hard-working and productive people who happen to be within the lower and middle class all angered about "Mexican rapists taking YOUR jobs" (Trump), and get you angry at the poor who use social services such as Food Stamps. And when you are angrily focused on poor people on Welfare, you won't notice the thousands of ways that the Crony Capitalists get their snouts in the trough.

One thing that Objectivists, libertarians and Progressives all should agree on is: eliminating crony capitalism. Then after that is accomplished, they can argue about poor people getting government social services.

The problem in our country is that a very high percentage of the voting population have no idea what the issues are. When 94% block of blacks vote for Obama is all based on race and what's in it for me. Hillary will increase the entitlements and Bernie will give the kitchen sink away. You cannot fight Santa Claus. We are doomed with President Clinton in November. But if you think that is bad watch out for Michelle. She will run for some Senate seat in a couple of years and in six years she will run for President. In my almost 80 years I have seen freedom dwindle and will eventually disappear. I have lost hope as Trump, the apparent winner and Republican nominee will lose badly to Hillary in the general election. I cry for my country.

We don't say, "illegal alien".
She was a person with questionable documentation.

IIf she is an illegal alien how the heck did she get anEBT card. I know I would have asked her how she got that card. And I probably would not be so nice.