Why this progressive supports Gary Johnson over Hillary Clinton

I suppose it's time that I explain why I support Gary Johnson and proselytise for him instead of Hillary Clinton, despite the high likelihood that she'll be the only opposition to Trump due to FPTP.
First off, I don't have the level of vociferous hatred many Republicans and Bernie fans have for her. I don't think she's the devil incarnate. To be honest, I worry for her.

Past the media furor of how expensive her dresses are or whatever the inconsequential topic of the day's news is, the veiled reality is that she has hopes and worries too. I remember reading a few people speaking about how they met Bill recently, and how his thousand-watt charisma was no longer there. She's married to a man she must love dearly, whom she has steadfastly stood beside while watching his slow decay as aging takes him inch by inch. Then there's the fact that the human mind evolved to take criticism and adoration in moderate measures from hunter-gatherer groups, and certainly not from tens of millions of people baying for blood or pinning their hopes and dreams on that person. The amount of courage (or foolhardiness) in face of this, to run for the position of "leader of the free world", must be recognised and commended.

However. I've noticed a trend with Obama's administration which I fear will continue if or when Hillary is elected. That is, when awful things are supported or signed into law, many progressive-leaning activists seem to be far more measured in their outrage. Had the conservative opposition been elected, any transgression would be spotted and screeched about to high heaven with massive protests in the streets. I worry that a Hillary administration would further erode civil liberties and start wars, and while there would be some push-back, would largely be allowed to go ahead as planned with the repeated adage of, well, at least they aren't the *other* guy. I suppose this is the natural end of a voting system that incentivises people to vote "for the lesser evil."

I honestly do wonder if Trump won, how much damage could he inflict, at least beyond what a typical Republican president would be capable of considering the balance of power held by a recalcitrant House and Senate. Any misconduct from Trump would most certainly receive intense scrutiny and backlash.
And beyond that, how much of a skullfucking would the Democratic party go through if they lost the war against a man as vile as Donald Trump? I predict that they would go through some serious soul-searching and restructuring once they realise they cannot screw with the American people, because as it stands I've witnessed a steady erosion of ethical integrity from many of them over the years. 15 years ago a concept like the removal of a constitutional right from people on a no-fly list would've had people marching in the streets. Now I see it being cheered on.

And of course, there's the matter of positions. Both Trump and Hillary are Schrödinger candidates in that regard, as on many issues they seem to be a superposition of both considering how often and fluidly they change. Johnson is a known quantity and for stuff like civil liberties, privacy and so forth, I can trust with reasonable certainty that he wont magically change his mind while in office.

Finally, one must consider that even with good and pure intentions, the actions taken in pursuit of them can quite seriously screw them in the long run. Consider for example, the discrimination of Muslim-Americans. Virtue-signalling to everyone how you want to include everyone so we can all make America better than ever is great and all, but what if she starts a proper war in Syria or Iran? A similar situation will play out as it did with Iraq, with destabilisation, subsequent radicalisation of many of their citizens, which will lead to increased highly publicised terrorist attacks, which will feed the general public's fear about Muslims and refugees from those places. The end result is greater discrimination. This extends to other sections of her proposed policies, but that's just one example.

In the end, whoever is elected, I hope that the historians of the future document this era of American politics as an uneventful footnote, and don't dedicate chapters in books on its subsequent horrors.