[nine_k]

This is correct. This is also a false dichotomy, unfortunately.

Both Democrats and Republicans are for large, strong, overarching government.

Probably a Libertarian president might make a difference and actually try to reduce the powers (and expenditures) of Washington, DC, and lower the burden of regulations. Try voting for Johnson. Unfortunately, chances to elect a candidate from outside the two big parties are about zero; Trump had to basically hijack the Republican party at its all-time weakest to become a real candidate.

[vacri]

A president can't do anything without the support of Congress. Electing a libertarian president would move the needle not a jot. Look at how Obama has been stymied, and he's all for the establishment.

If Trump gets in, he'll be able to do a lot of reputational damage with his rhetoric, but without the support of Congress, he'll be able to do very little in the way of actual legislative change. Mind you, it'll be interesting to see what he does when the debt-limit timebomb comes up again.

[wfo]

A president can do an enormous amount without the support of congress. A president can veto, and many, MANY regulations are executive branch administration rules rather than laws passed by the legislative branch.

I'm not particularly in favor of a president whose goal is to "burn it all down" in the way the Libertarians want to, but executive power is wide reaching and almost unfettered and there is a whole hell of a lot a president can do.

[Naritai]

A libertarian may well do that, but in this world we (Americans) live in, it _is_ a dichotomy.

I would say, as an aside, that we give too much credit to the president - you want to cut red tape? Start with the municipal government, and get them to ease off on zoning regulations. Go from there.