Complaints that immigrants are criminals go back to 1492. The Irish, the Italians,... the Purple Gang were Jews... Here in Texas, we have Germans, lots and lots of Germans, so many that until two world wars pushed them underground, Texas German was recognized as a dialect. To me, they are a bunch of crypto-nazis who threaten our way of life with their goose-stepping thought patterns. But that's just my own prejudice. Other people find them law-abiding, hardworking, community oriented, good neighbors. But that's how I see Mexicans. So, one man's Ronald Reagan is another man's Daniel Ortega.

More disturbing than Gary Johnson's brand of libertarianism is the fact that Alex Jones is endorsing Donald Trump. Donald Trump's "Prison Planet" would come via different issues than that of Hillary Clinton, but the result is the same as far as you and I would perceive it.

Your ire gets the best of you. "New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson inherited a $1.8 billion debt and left it with a debt of $4.6 billion." Read the constitution of the State of New Mexico. You can excoriate the (part-time) legislature, but Gary Johnson had little to do with it.

Gary sounded better in the fixed link you provided; but if there is a libertarian principle of open borders like you say, then I cannot be a libertarian or a Gary Johnson supporter.
Safety first. Without sufficient security, everything else goes to crap.
I should know. Between 1982 and 2013, I used to be security for someone in a variety of forms.
Respectfully yours, Me Dino.

Another spot on comment. And we also know how they treat anyone who does not believe in Sharia law. There was a poll done recently that asked the Muslims who are living in our country if they favored the elimination of our constitution and then replace it with Sharia law. Almost 60% of them said yes, It's thought that the percentage is actually higher, but some of the Muslims who were polled were probably reluctant to tell the pollsters what they really think. Yeah, we sure need more of these people.

Sorry for the bad link. here is the good one:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/lib...

Sorry, dino. I had to re-enter the whole post because of a typo and I didn't get the link correctly. My fault.
Here is the link again:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/lib...
I have posted this link about 4 times in the Gulch because of misleading false articles about Johnson's stance on those issues. Biased writers don't care if what they post is true as long as it supports their irrational views. (Not referring to you, dino;^)
I don't agree with Johnson on immigration either, but Johnson's stance is consistent with libertarian principle of open borders. His experience with immigrants in New Mexico is obviously better than what you and I perceive. However, imo, Johnson has other more important and more far reaching issues right, e.g., income tax elimination, and cutting budgets for transfer payments (which means no support payments to illegals that encourage them to come and stay without producing.) The explosion in job creation that removal of income tax will bring will overwhelm any immigration issue, imo. The other candidates will not solve the problem because their solution is more government, (and an unlikely wall that would be a big drain on the economy, a big tax on consumers if built using tarriffs, and a blow against free trade.)

That "webpage can't be found."
I won't vote for Gary if just because he thinks illegal aliens are just wonderful.
That human flood is an economy killer and killers will be--are already--among among them.
We already know how Muslim refuges treat women, little girls and little boys in Europe.

Dino, thanks for modifying Paul Joseph Watson's idiotic title for the article, but your title is not accurate either.

Gary Johnson is a Libertarian. His campaign messages have been purposely less focused on libertarian issues than previous campaigns because those campaigns L O S T and accomplished practically nothing as a result of their trumpeting ideology that voters can't understand.
It didn't work before and it won't work now. Libertarians can be like Hillary supporters and just wish the reality was different, or they can accept reality and do something that expands the libertarian message.
I don't agree with everything Johnson has said, but those things are not going to show up on Johnson's desk for action, so while I disagree it's a moot point.
The things that Johnson has promised to achieve are much more important and when achieved will make the other items irrelevant.
1. Close down the Dept of Education which will end the fedgov's propaganda monopoly and make it possible to the truth to be taught, and reason and achievement rewarded.
2. Balance the federal budget by reducing spending
3. End the Income tax on productivity This alone will completely change the face of America and the economy for the better.

Paul Joseph Watson is not libertarian and doesn't agree with libertarian platform. Not very surprising that he supports a statist Trump dictatorship instead of a statist Hillary dictatorship. Posting is rubbish from a completely biased source. Paul Joseph Watson is an irrational loon based upon his completely biased writings.

Better verify before posting, dino. The first two in your list are lies according to this:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/lib...
That puts all the rest of the claims in doubt as biased reporting as a source that supports evil in fear of Hillary.

The more important question:
Can a free market be destroyed by political means?
The answer is "YES"
For example: Political favors grant monopoly staus.
Is it possible these favors be reversed and the free market improved by political means?
The answer is "YES"

Do you think they're making a mistake by saying the things in the OP. I would not be able to support someone who didn't take most of those positions. Most of them I think are either basic facts or basic good policy. They're nothing complicated but just something at the core of what I find to be reasonable. If my notions of basic fact and reasonableness are majority views (I'm not sure if they are), then shouldn't political parties run candidates like this?

Back in 1980, Erwin S. "Filthy Pierre" Strauss wrote
The Case Against a Libertarian Political Party.
http://www.worldcat.org/title/case-ag...
(See Erwin Strauss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_S...

His point was only that power and market are mutually exclusive. You cannot bring about a free market by political means. You get a constitutionally limited government from a free market.

Moreover, in mimicking the political modes of the big parties, the Libertarians commit a consistent and constant series of strategic and tactical errors, such as nominating warmed-over Republicans to stand for the Presidency on their ticket.

I have never been to an LP national convention. (I have been at state conventions, but never as a delegate: I had a vendor table.) I have been told that at the national conventions, these forward thinking radicals are arrayed in alphabetical order by state. When the name of their preferred candidate is spoken by the chair, the delegates in support beat their sign poles on the ground and hoot.

BTW: another thread is in order on this, but if you know the works of Jane Jacobs, you may know of her essays on the two modes of survival, the trading ethic and the guardian ethic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems...