b) ban Muslim entry: no but he could make it difficult to get a visa from Muslim countries, that would be easy enough. Just don’t assign consular officers to Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc. He could also deport all visa overstayers, which is probably the prime source of Muslim illegal immigration. Also restrict refugee resettlement, etc. So he could definitely make a dent in Muslim immigration.

c) take out family members: the DOJ is already going after the SB killers family members. It’s a perfectly reasonable tactic practiced by places like Israel and Russia. The fact the other candidates are unaware just shows that Trump has more curiousity

d)

c) deport 10 million: not every speeder has to be caught, but there does have to be a reasonable threat of getting a ticket. All he has to do is bring back the threat of deportation to a) serve as deterrent and b) encourage self-deportation.

d) bring back torture: remember, it was the “principled,” “morally serious,” “constitutionalist” Ben Sasse who helped John Yoo draft his torture memos. He was chief of staff for the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy, when the department produced the “torture memos” between 2003 and 2005. So if you’re opposed to torture (as I am) keep the neocons from power, and that includes Hillary.

So yeah, Trump will probably make good progress on most of his promises.

Some of these are difficult to imagine how they could even have any meaning. How do you “bomb isis”? (Let alone carpet bombing, which I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt of having no clue what he is talking about)

But even accepting what Trump might think he means fot the sake of argument, do you believe hr actually intends to pursue all of them? Why or why not? Which ones do you believe? Why?

All we have to go off of is extreme narcissism.

You don’t see how abstaining from endorsing either extreme narcissism or paranoid megalomania are a perfectly rational option?

Because your assumptions are based on voting matter ing and math says it doesn’t. And what if Gary Johson actually got to spoiler territory…well…and? Spoil what?

And also don’t discount cognitive biases, either.

However, I do agree that his tanking the party’s prospects this election are a sink costm

So, again, why? Your vote isn’t going to put Trump in office. And why would you risk leaving your keyboard for what little benefit there is, if there is any, and there isn’t by the way, of Trump over Hillary?

If Hillary is elected, every anti-“liberal” thing she did would be Voxsplained to us. Justifications would pour forth from CNN, MSNBC, etc.

The purpose of your vote should be to achieve some outcome. If you like Johnson’s policies, but voting for him is unlikely to bring about those policies, what’s the point?

I don’t just mean it in the is Johnson likely to win the election sense, but also that the policies themselves might be self refuting. For years libertarians pushed for open borders republicans. Now the demographics are such that only welfare supporting leftists can win. They pushed LGBT, now we are forced to pay for everyones anti-retrovirals and sex changes operations via Obamacare, and those people still aren’t going to vote libertarian ever.

Even if a libertarian was against forcing someone to bake a cake *in theory*, what realistic plan do they have for bringing about a state of society where someone is free to decide whether they bake a cake?

The election is an A/B test between Trump/Clinton. Why vote for someone else who has absolutely no chance of winning?