"Anyway, can someone who likes Jorgenson break down why she would be worth voting for if Trump’s demeanor is what is holding someone back. Where does she line up with what he has been doing and how does she differ?"

I do not know anyone, anywhere, personally, who knows - personally - any of these people who are seeking POWER and PROFIT at the level of President of the Corporation U.S.A. Inc. (LLC).

Where any of these people "line up" is a judgment call based upon distant data thereby.

Do you believe the information you receive from second hand sources, also known as hearsay?

noun
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:
I pay no attention to hearsay.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:
a malicious hearsay.
adjective
of, relating to, or characterized by hearsay:
hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

My point being pointed out here has to do with leadership as a function of individual judgment based upon available data. If the data available is often false (campaign promises routinely broken without consequence), then those people in a position to make a leadership judgment call (voting for someone seeking POWER and PROFIT in an election) are disarmed, and thereby incapable of making a judgment.

Flipping a coin is potentially more likely to choose the better choice over the worse choice.

Tossing up Cross and Pile?

"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781

Electoral Politics (Mob Rule) has been known to be an oligarchical process since The Golden Age of Greece. Trial by Jury, where individuals command all legal judgment, jurisdiction, power, and control, politically, is as sensitive to the vital need for accurate data, otherwise the judgment of the case is not possible logically, reasonably, and without doubt: gambling.

My point here is to point out that the whole business of electing a "leader" is a sham, a deception, a fraud, and when you look into the mirror to judge my point, will you see a leader, or will you see a fool?

The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long

"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.

"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.

"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

A "campaign" promise made by Trump was along the lines of Killary Klinton going to jail. There is no Law in America, and why is that?

Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763
"Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."

If I were inclined to vote this "election cycle" (psycho), I'd probably vote for Jorgensen, and that is because I know someone who intends to vote for Jorgensen, and I agree with their vote of no-confidence in the current situation.

The current situation can be summed up as a false choice (votes will not be counted accurately) between the lesser of two evils.

It (election psycho hamster wheel) distracts people whose defensive powers ought to be put to good use instead of running on the hamster wheel.