BeadleDeedle said: "So Hillary Clinton and the goals of the Democratic Party are evil? Libertarians. Keepin it classy as always. Thanks for all your important political contributions!"
I can't say I consider that a particularly "classy" response to my rather civil posts. :) However, I probably could have worded things better. I've heard quite a few friends - including Democrats who are voting for Clinton - use that very phrase ("the lesser of two evils"
, so I didn't think twice about using it myself. I don't actually mean to say that Clinton is evil; I only mean to say that she's not a great candidate from my point of view, and the number one reason is her militarism. (Ironically, that's exactly why another self-described libertarian here, Javero, is supporting her!) I don't mean to disparage anyone who's voting for Clinton; as I said, I'll save that for Trump voters. I'd hope that others would extend me a similar courtesy.
I wanted to add one more thing regarding my response to Auggie, who asked what could be achieved by a vote for a sure loser. In Maryland, if a minor party's top-of-the-ticket candidate (i.e. president or governor, depending on the year) receives one percent of the vote, that party retains ballot access for another cycle, sparing it an expensive petitioning process.
Finally, I promise that's the last post I'll make about this for a while, unless someone asks me another question. :)