But the tone of the country has deteriorated substantiall siince then. Now all bets are off as to government controls, taxation is way higher, an admitted socialist nearly bumped a non-admitted socialist in the democratic party, and globalization has gotten PC status. Thats not progress politically in my view.

Things are not that different. Goldwater also “was a direct assault on the establishment and cronyism, and it was met with incrediblly unified opposition of the media, both political parties (the Rockefeller wing of the GOP), and pundits all over the place.” There are plenty of candidates that can withstand the attacks that appear to concern you so much. Such attacks are opportunities to turn the tables on the media and the pundits while educating the voters on the freedom alternative. Trump is an expert doing just that, but many others are likewise capable of doing so while presenting a more consistent defense of individual liberty.

We’re way beyond “first steps” and “small steps”. My first step was voting for Goldwater in 1964. My second step was joining the Libertarian Party in 1972. Both myself and the LP have taken many steps since then, and the party’s footprint is growing. My goal is to see the LP take increasingly bigger steps as opportunities arise.

But he still has 5% support. The intellectual tone of the country is too socialist to elect a libertarian. We have to take smaller steps I think, and cracking open the establishment with Trump is a good first step

None of it matters anymore. I think it's too late. A few nights ago at our local bar and grille I was talking to a middle aged couple that had already voted. I somehow sensed they voted "D". Then somehow the conversation got to me mentioning the name George Soros. When the guy looked at me like I was from Mars and seriously said, "I don't know who that is", I had to end our conversation and head for home before I totally lost it. If people can vote without any knowledge about what they are doing, who's in the background, who's really running the show, then we're lost, it's all over. What it amounts to is playing to all the PC garbage, and other things that are meaningless whether they are true or not. It's just pure politics, which most of know is pure bull anymore.

Back to the topic. A vote for anything other than Trump is a vote for tyranny for this country, and that includes any third party or abstinence vote. The only things to consider are the real issues and where we agree or disagree with the candidates, we must all ignore the rest.

My choice is simple, if I vote for a liar, a cheat and a murderer and a crooked politician over some that has perhaps said a few things I find offensive, that means I am condoning that kind of criminal behavior. DESPITE the fact that as much as Mr. Trump is the only one to "step up" as someone not in politics to run for President, he also is not a candidate that would sacrifice his own child if it meant a guarantee that he would make the presidency.

You are right. The election should be based on whats going to be done going forward, not on the mud raking the media is feeding on.

I have a small business and I agree with your analysis totally. I got OUT of medical equipment manufacturing because of the incredible FDA regulations, fines, inspections, etc. I make off road LED equipment now, so far unregulated for the most part. 35% corporate taxation makes me less desirous of working harder and making more money, just to have it taken away anyway. Hillary with her 65% estate tax makes me want to not work as hard only to lose 65% of what I built up during my life go to the unwashed.

“From President Obama to Bernie Sanders, Democrats are increasingly sounding the alarm on third-party candidates as polls show the Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein siphoning more support from Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-...

“Every Bernie supporter voting for Johnson needs to see this.” – Democratic Coalition against Trump

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

“Gary Johnson is Under Attack.” – NBCnews . com

http://www.nbcnews.com/card/gary-john...

here's the important thing I notice. When you offer a tax credit for infrastructure investment, as outlined by Wilbur Ross this morning, you give a person that is pursuing his own selfish desires a reason to pursue them in a grander fashion. With the infrastructure investment plan, the tax credits will be revenue neutral because of the income and employment taxes paid by the people working the jobs and the companies involved in the jobs.

When you lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to let's say 15%, you create an incentive for domestic small businesses to open. At the same time you also create an incentive for companies world wide to consider doing business in USA. Consider this, if most of the manufacturing is physically done by robot, then tax treatment and regulation become the real sticking points. So, if a CEO can create a better ROI for stockholders because of the tax treatment and regulatory environment in the USA, then many foreign companies will buy or lease real estate, build or remodel to suit their needs, then hire permanent staff, which moves us toward a career economy and away from a gig economy. With that same set of incentives, the corporate profits held offshore to avoid taxes will migrate back to USA because of the favorable tax treatment. Oh, and one other thing, those foreign companies now doing business here will keep the profits here for exactly the same reason our companies have left money overseas. We would have a better treatment of the profits here, rather than sending it back to Europe or Asia. And this is a revenue booster because all of the new activity is being taxed, rather than taxing the prior activity to a stand still. Over time this activity creates a huge pile of capital. Funny thing, capital seeks ROI. And, new ideas seek capital to get up and running. With the capital sitting here, the next big thing will find us, instead of us running around the world trying to pick winners and losers. Think of it. The next big thing would be and American product or service.

On the other hand, progressives know nothing, or little, of incentives. Their motivators are usually punishments. A progressive fine for not enrolling in Obamacare. Higher taxes so they may have "their cut" first. Before a shovel of earth is turned they must have permits, fees, licenses, etc. Then when the product begins to flow they must inspect it, fine companies for not meeting their standards, demand that you have healthcare, talk through both side of their mouth by encouraging hiring and then taxing employment. In our rental properties, mostly progressive tenants, I can't tell you the number of times I have found the bedroom locks modified to keep the children locked into their rooms. Is that an incentive to stay in your room and study, or is that a punishment to be locked in your room? You be the judge.

In my view, the candidate that hands out incentives is greasing the wheels so the factory of innovation can once more begin creating wealth, the American way. The other candidate wants to make us look like western Europe. A hundred bucks a week take home pay, and health, housing, food, and clothing provided by the government. Not what I wish for my grandchildren.

I voted for goldwater also. He didnt do well at all. Reagan wasnt really a conservative though. He did some good things and outspent the Russians on weapons and negotiated well with foreign powers. But he expanded government control and spending a LOT. He had charisma.

Things are different now, though. Trump was a direct assault on the establishment and cronyism, and it was met with incrediblly unified opposition of the media, both political parties, and pundits all over the place. He has name recognition, more money that he could ever spend (so he spent HIS money on the campaign), and he is pretty old with nothing to really gain personally from being president. And he has stamina to withstand the attacks. I havent EVER seen that in the past in candidates. Who is crazy enough to spend their own money on this crazy election process? Thats why I say that until the establishment is weakened by its own policies (as in AS actually), we wont see another Trump for a long time.

Johnson hasnt gotten the full impact of a democratic competitive assault this time around. With only 5% in the polls, its just not worth the effort on the part of the dems. Much more voter education and concentration on the failures of socialism will have to be done before the libertarians have a chance at all. Plus they need a charismatic candidate to rally the voters, which unfortunately Johnson ISNT.

If Trump loses we will see many more like him in the future. I cast my first vote for Goldwater, who lost in a landslide. His brand of conservatism was universally written off as dead. A short 16 years later we got Reagan. I don’t expect the freedom movement to collapse if Hillary’s elected, especially considering the disarray in the Democratic Party and the lack of voter enthusiasm for its presidential candidate.

Re: “My point is that in THIS election we actually have a decent chance of slowing down socialism, giving freedom loving people more TIME to do more education before the country falls deeper into decline.” We will have just as much TIME to educate the public if Hillary wins. And the Libertarian Party has too much at stake this year to abandon the field just because Trump is preferable to Hillary. With two deeply unpopular major party candidates in the race, Libertarians are receiving massive amounts of media and public attention that the party can build upon for future elections. The LP can’t wait around for another opportunity like this. The party’s future, and perhaps the country’s as well, depend upon a decent LP showing in the polls this time around.

I would agree IF he wins. If he loses, its unlikely that we would see another one in the future. If he wins, I agree its a very positive sign for Libertarian ideas in the future.

Unlike many of those voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate--because they say Clinton and Trump are equally unacceptable--the vast majority of the Liberal-Left media, academia, and commentators do NOT find both candidates worthy of simply being dismissed.

Far from it. They are desperate to defeat Donald Trump by any means--ready to defame, distort, and destroy his reputation--NEVER discussing his position or ideas; they are falling all over themselves to advance the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

Already the stories are pouring forth about plans of the extreme Left to co-opt the Clinton agenda; to be sure all her appointments, expecially to the Supreme Court, are far left; to be sure environmentalists, gays-lesbians-transgendered individuals are equally represented; to be sure Obama care moves toward full socialized medicine; to be sure that Clinton's statement that the most important single issue in our future is global warming is fully translated into law.

No, they don't see both candidates as useless. They see Clinton as the royal road to the next advance for collectivism; see Trump as anathema. Do you REALLY think they are terrified of Trump because he boasted of groping? Really, you think that has the gigantic mainstream media machine breathing like race horses?

In his speech at Gettysburg, this week, Trump offered a new contract with America: every plank, with the arguable exception of trade agreements and "the wall," would advance liberty. Quash the assault of economic regulation; defund global warming; back the new U.S, energy revolution, the most exciting economic advance in decades; focus federal money in education on school choice and charter schools; go seriously for term limits; and so it went.

Do I really have to paint the contrast with the Clinton agenda? Oh yes, there is a difference between the only two candidates on the menu, this year. Do you want the difference? It comes down to that.

ONE THING, by the way, is overlooked in its true implications: Donald Trump is an outsider in federal office. He has not built his career on political constituencies and lobbying groups. Most of them have opposed him in this election. (The National Rifle Association is a major exception, but their entire demand is to uphold on item on the U.S. Constituion Bill of Rights--not an expensive demand.)

A President Trump owes NOTHING to any of the big guys, the insiders, the lobbying giants. Nothing. If elected, Trump will be elected by group to which Ayn Rand pointed, again and again, as the commonsense, working class, sense-of-life core of Ameirca. How the media hates them!

"Share" and urge others to share if you agree. We have no other way of being heard over the blaring loudspeakers of the mainstream media.

It is crucial for independents and Johnson supporters to decide that Trump is WAY better on the issues; that much of the personality stuff comes from endless shovelfulls of shit the media has tossed--Trump fights back and the cry is "bully"; and that they can't bear the thought of having Clinton and her legions of self-righteous, identity-politics-crazed, anti-capitalist followers pour into Washington by the thousands next January to take over the levels of federal government.

I agree totally, which is why I voted for Trump in early voting. Political efforts against a very powerful elitist establishment arent going to succeed, particularly if there really isnt anywhere near popular support for really libertarian ideas as the present time. Even Johnson had to water down some of the libertarian principles (like let pot be sold and taxed but still maintain the war on drugs)

Now that's hope for chamge me dino hopes to work out.

Read the article. I just reviewed all the reasons I'm voting for the Bad Hair Day..

I agree that the enthusiastic supporters wont just sit down and die if he loses. BUT, is there another Trump out there with the stamina, the private money, and the ability to rally the supporters like Trump? I think others in the future who have seen what happened to Sanders and Trump will think twice before running for president here in the USA

I don’t think Trump is a one-of-a-kind candidate and I believe we will have many more chances to slow down socialism. Whether he wins or loses (and I expect him to win) he has already completely routed the Republican establishment, invaded the Democrats’ ideological “safe spaces,” forced the mainstream media to openly demonstrate its bias, exposed a huge undercurrent of voter revulsion against conventional candidates of both parties, and energized an enthusiastic base of supporters who can be expected to continue exercising their considerable political clout. I anticipate many more Donald Trumps in our future, willing to defy the establishment and hopefully more consistent in their defense of liberty.

Funny thing, but in this election Trump has exposed a lot of that, to the benefit of us all. Using the upset of a lot of voters, he hijacked the republical party right under their noses. Hillary only cemented the democratic party into her cronyism- to the detriment of even the devout socialist Sanders.

You are wrong about that, in my opinion. First thing she does is $15 an hour wage. That means I have to scramble to figure out how to keep my business alive in the face of Chinese competition on 25% fewer workers. Lets say that my business stays alive with $15 an hour enforced minimum wage- if I do make money, she will tax me more in hundreds of ways to pay for her programs. If I sell my business, I will be hit with massive taxes and probably lose half of what I would get.

Now, given this, why would I want to expand my business and invest in new products and take the risks of that. My answer is that I wouldnt. My desire to make the business bigger would be diminished and I will be more inclined to just retire and go have a nice life without working so hard.


Thats the kind of SHRUGGING that will happen now. Its slow and relentless, but over the years will bring down the country.

I'll take the non-politician over a corrupt lifelong career political prostitute any day over anyone else. These elections, NO third party is not a viable option considering the slightest chance it may help the Clinton tag team get back in the WH to finish perverting what America has stood for since its' beginning. Hopefully, this election will make the WH just a fading memory for Hillary.

Too much focus has been on personalities, and not enough on policy proposals. The biggest danger to the promise of individual freedom is the possibility of a Clinton-packed judicial system. If she succeeds in loading the Federal court system with activist judges, Libertarians can kiss their hopes goodbye, which is why a third party vote now is not the smartest idea.

If Johnson was in any real position of power, a la Perot before he sabotaged his own campaign, then I'd be all for voting for him, but he's not. This is a case where voting in support of principle is downright suicidal to those principles.

BUT, this election is really about how the person will do in the job at hand, not all this mud raking stuff from the past. Its the future that will count.

Vote for Hillary and you get the posterchild for socialism, 65% death tax, her claim she will not add to the national debt (but there is a current 500billion annual deficit that would have to be made up by tax increases on us), elimination of obamacare and replacement by Hillarycare (which means medicare for everyone including illegals), fast tracking of syrian refugees into citizenship, and increasing globalization.

Vote for Trump, and you get repeal of Obamacare, and replacement of government control with competition among insurance companies, lower taxes on corporations , and a pro business approach to regulations, a real shot at getting us respect from other countries like Russia (less chance of war), and most likely a more robust economy through his inspiration about making america great again (which means WE make america great through our own efforts, not him)

Is Trump a libertarian, NO. But he will slow down socialism in the next 4 years, and help get rid of the stranglehold of political correctness over what we can say.