"I think both candidates are terrible so I'm just going to vote for this idiot who has no clue! Haha, I'm totally sticking it to the man, now!"
Would you prefer Trump to Johnson?
Why would I need to choose? There's already a candidate much more qualified than either of them. One who, I'm guessing, could continue naming world leaders after both those idiots have given up and gone to bed (which, in Johnson's case, is exactly zero leaders in).
I suppose I wasn't asking you specifically, because your vote was never really in question. But your glib quote, and a lot of the posts above it, are premised on the fact that a vote for Johnson is only reasonable after ruling out two qualified, relatively equal major party candidates. Given the fact that several (state-level) Republicans have endorsed or outright switched to the LP, I'd venture that a lot of them don't see it as a decision between "two major-party candidates and some guy", but rather between "one major party candidate, a narcissistic looney toon, and some guy".
Yeah yeah, party allegiance, electoral viability, etc. I'll take some guy who can't name a foreign leader he "looks up to" over two that want to either bomb or overthrow 90% of them.
But, in a binary scenario, sure I'd take Johnson over Trump. He at least has some governing experience and a couple policies I could support (although he's realistically a pretty typical Big Business Support the Rich Republican in most ways)
Only if you equate "less regulation" with "supports big business". Typically big businesses are supportive of more regulation because it creates a larger barrier to entry for potential new competitors.
I don't support every Johnson policy (e.g. replace federal income tax with federal sales tax), but he's by far the best option for any conservative who doesn't want an ego-maniacal, thin-skinned rutabaga in the Oval Office, even if the rutabaga does know the name of the Queen of Denmark.