(08-21-2020, 04:37 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote:

(08-20-2020, 10:08 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: In a sense, it fits. Reduction of government, and all. Just like with any party, there's going to be differences among the members on positions. But this seems more like a flavor of the day to me.

The idea of a minimal government is true. But Police/prisons/military/judiciary are some the more universal things that Libertarians agree need to be government. I think she is trying to appeal to the day. Now if she had said get rid of the DEA, well that would be well within what the Libertarians would have wanted in the past as it is seen as a waste of money/infringing on individual freedom (although there is definitely a good argument that hard drugs have a significant cost to society and should not be freely available, which I agree with). Anyway, I considered her before I read the police thing, I am not voting for any candidate who wants less police right now when people are getting crazier.

It's a protest vote regardless.  your Candidate is not going to win, they only exist to put certain ideas out there. You should never consider casting a protest vote unless you are truly ambivalent about which of the two main party candidates will win. if you think the two main candidates are equally bad, then go ahead and cast that protest vote. but if you think one is more evil than the other, you're pretty much ethically obligated to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

---