When the intended consequences for your gun rights start accelerating after Hellery is elected, remember that vote of conscience you made to send a message.
Do what you want, nobody can change your mind.

At the end of the class that I attended at Front Sight this past June, the range master said he was not going to tell anyone who to vote for, but he gave a 15 minute talk on the importance of the 2nd amendment.  He concluded with the only thing he looks for in any candidate is their stance on 2a.  He said he doesn't care what they think on other stuff.  If they are pro 2a, that is who he votes for because 2a is what protects freedom in this country and if we ever lost the 2nd amendment, we will never get it back.  I know he is right.

Hawaii 2 electoral  votes won't matter, its over before the popular votes are counted here.

that is the reason we all need to get out & vote for TCrump.

A vote for anyone that isn't Trump is a vote for Hillary.  *corrected false claims

Hawaii is guaranteed to go to Clinton anyway so why not vote Libertarian anyway?

Besides, if we extend your logic then I can blame you for not moving to a swing state and voting Trump there so as to win that state. "Staying in Hawaii and voting Trump is a vote for Clinton"

If Trump supporters can blame libertarian votes for a Clinton win then Gary Johnson can blame Trump supporters for a Clinton win as well.

If you vote for any one except trump you are voting for Hillary, a 3rd party has ZERO chance of winning.

Says who? What makes that statement true other than the fact that people repeat it over and over again?

Sounds like a case of people yelling something so loud that people accept it as true.

Anything is possible. Gary Johnson could possibly get 67% of the electoral college. But it is not probable. Too many entrenched democrats and republicans for that to happen. My prediction is Gary Johnson is going to be an also ran in the history books. Take it from someone who has voted Libertarian for years only to watch my candidate get 10% or less of the popular vote. As much as I would like to see a Libertarian become president, it won't happen in my lifetime. I'll go out on a limb and make that prediction.

Traditionally, the Libertarian candidate pulls most of their votes from ex republicans since their ideologies are more similar. There are three factions in the democrat party as I see them. The typical Liberal is the more moderate of the three factions has become the minority in the party. The Libertarian Party might get a few votes from them but they are bullied so much by the other factions they wouldn't dare vote any other way. The Progressive faction is so radical that they would never break party ranks and vote other than a dem. They are now the majority in the party. And then there is the newest faction which took over second place from the Liberals which are the Socialists. And they are the Bernie fanatics. Again, they bully each other if they even consider a vote in another direction.

I'll even take anyone out to breakfast at their choice of restaurant if anyone really thinks it can really happen. Anyone willing to take on my challenge? Gary Johnson wins the presidency, I'll take you out for breakfast at a restaurant of your choice on this island. If Gary Johnson doesn't even come close (10% or less of the popular vote) you take me out to breakfast at Zippy's. So there is the possibility that no one gets taken out to breakfast if Gary Johnson gets 11% or more of the popular vote. You have to agree in this thread in order to qualify.

My stance on this has been clear from the beginning. I am going to vote for the republican candidate (In this case Trump) because I am tired of my candidate never even coming close to winning and I want to do everything I can in order to keep Hillary out of office. If you don't vote for Trump, it give Hillary a better chance of becoming president.

If the media started giving him real coverage and he was allowed to come to the debate then I would take your bet but if the current representation remains the same then I would probably have to agree with you. Maybe Johnson needs some high profile event or incident.

As a disclaimer I am not a political analyses so I don't know the breakdown of democrat voters but I think a fair number could be swayed to vote Libertarian. The promise of legalizing marijuana, and other drugs, alone would get a lot of votes from people whose big issue is drug policy. Potheads could get behind him and those who argue drug policy is overfilling out prisons with the wrong people could get behind him. Problem is getting the message to those voters since it takes a bit of work to research options beyond the shallow 2 candidate news pieces spammed to us.
Thoughts?

You already have our thoughts.

You can bet on something that has a 60% chance of winning, versus something with a 5% chance of winning.

Maybe you REALLY want that 5% thing, but you can only bet once.

Saw this post on FB recommending people check out the candidate's FB pages and see how many of their friends "Liked" them.  Here's what I got:

Trump:  38 Friends

Clinton:  1 Friend

Johnson:  0 Friends

Looks like I not only hang out with the smartest people , but Trump has double the FB followers of Hillary!   

LOL a couple of my friends liked BOTH Trump and Clinton. I think they just click LIKE whenever they see the icon. I'm sure they also clicked LIKE for Sanders.

At the end of the class that I attended at Front Sight this past June, the range master said he was not going to tell anyone who to vote for, but he gave a 15 minute talk on the importance of the 2nd amendment.  He concluded with the only thing he looks for in any candidate is their stance on 2a.  He said he doesn't care what they think on other stuff.  If they are pro 2a, that is who he votes for because 2a is what protects freedom in this country and if we ever lost the 2nd amendment, we will never get it back.  I know he is right.

Unless both candidates are pro-2a, 2a is my only criteria for who I vote for.   

I am a single issue voter at this point.  All other issues follow it.

Unless both candidates are pro-2a, 2a is my only criteria for who I vote for.   

I am a single issue voter at this point.  All other issues follow it.

I live my life believing that actions speak louder than words. I know from past experience what Billary is capable of. Especially her stance on 2a. So she is a known quantity. I hear Trump is pro 2a but now I am going to vote for someone who is an unknown. I believe I am taking a big chance voting for Trump. I am willing to take that chance as the other pro 2a candidate, Gary Johnson is also an unknown to me.

We have to have faith Trump is going actually do what he says he will. If he gets elected we will know soon enough if he is for real or he is full of shit. Yeah, it all comes down to 2a and faith.

What happened to London808 s post. It was removed. While I am sure you won't agree I don't see why it was removed? Would one of the mods explain why? What posted rules did the post violate?

You already have our thoughts.

You can bet on something that has a 60% chance of winning, versus something with a 5% chance of winning.

Maybe you REALLY want that 5% thing, but you can only bet once.

If the public new as much about Johnson as they did about Trump and Clinton and still did not give him any votes then I wouldn't be raising this issue. But that is not the case. Comparing such percentages is like leaving a food item off the menu and then saying  it isn't successful because few order it. 

The democratic process requires an informed public to work well. It seems that there is an intentional effort to keep 3rd party candidates off the menu.
The Commission on Presidential Debates controls who gets to go to the debates and it seems they have a vested interest in keeping 3rd party candidates out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Ralph Nader had a ticket as a spectator to a presidential debate and the denied him entrance.  The commission has been sued multiple times.

I know the chance is small but by refusing to vote third party, all I do is keep the third party from getting notoriety. My hopes are that even if a third party candidate does not win that they get enough attention to be considered viable in future elections.

Interesting article here about the two party system:

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-two-party-system-in-the-USA-specified-by-the-constitution

If the public new as much about Johnson as they did about Trump and Clinton and still did not give him any votes then I wouldn't be raising this issue. But that is not the case. Comparing such percentages is like leaving a food item off the menu and then saying  it isn't successful because few order it. 

The democratic process requires an informed public to work well. It seems that there is an intentional effort to keep 3rd party candidates off the menu.
The Commission on Presidential Debates controls who gets to go to the debates and it seems they have a vested interest in keeping 3rd party candidates out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Ralph Nader had a ticket as a spectator to a presidential debate and the denied him entrance.  The commission has been sued multiple times.

I know the chance is small but by refusing to vote third party, all I do is keep the third party from getting notoriety. My hopes are that even if a third party candidate does not win that they get enough attention to be considered viable in future elections.

So basically you want to elect Hillary, while at the same time raising the profile of 3rd party candidates, so that after 8 years of Hillary, you can choose a 3rd party candidate that will try to bring back the 2nd Amendment which was deleted during those 8 years.

If the public new as much about Johnson as they did about Trump and Clinton and still did not give him any votes then I wouldn't be raising this issue. But that is not the case. Comparing such percentages is like leaving a food item off the menu and then saying  it isn't successful because few order it. 

The democratic process requires an informed public to work well. It seems that there is an intentional effort to keep 3rd party candidates off the menu.
The Commission on Presidential Debates controls who gets to go to the debates and it seems they have a vested interest in keeping 3rd party candidates out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Ralph Nader had a ticket as a spectator to a presidential debate and the denied him entrance.  The commission has been sued multiple times.

I know the chance is small but by refusing to vote third party, all I do is keep the third party from getting notoriety. My hopes are that even if a third party candidate does not win that they get enough attention to be considered viable in future elections.

Knew

Bottom line is that if you don't vote for trump, you're essentially voting for Clinton.

There's no chance in hell that other guy is getting elected.

Only an idiot would waste his vote when this election is crucial to the protection and preservation of our constitution.

Make no mistake, Hillary Cunton will be the single biggest threat to the constitution that ever was. (as president)

In all of Americas History there has only ever been one elected president that wasent a republican or a democrat,

Wow this thread is beyond stupid. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, plain and simple. Anything else benefits Hillary.

So basically you want to elect Hillary, while at the same time raising the profile of 3rd party candidates, so that after 8 years of Hillary, you can choose a 3rd party candidate that will try to bring back the 2nd Amendment which was deleted during those 8 years.

If you are going to use the logic that a vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Clinton then I can use the same logic the other way, that a vote for anyone but Johnson is a vote for Clinton. All republicans who refuse to vote Johnson are handing the election to Clinton. See how we can twist that?

But as I stated earlier and we all know, Hawaii is a guaranteed democrat vote. So by voting for 3rd party out of principle I take nothing away from Trump. If this were a swing state then maybe your argument would have some clout and I would be considering voting for Trump. However since it is not, and my vote won't make a difference since Hawaii's will go to Clinton, I am going to send the one message I can with my vote.