A friend emails:
I'm still thinking about this for some reason. I came to the conclusion that if the term "Libertarians for ... " is used, the next word(s) should be something a libertarian would be for.
If Trump takes a position that Libertarians would support, it can go "Libertarians for getting out of NATO," or "Libertarians for getting out of Iraq".
There is no compromise with saying that.
If Trump was lying just to get votes (which would surprise no one) then Libertarians can't be put in a 'gotcha' situation from a PR standpoint. Libertarians still stand for what they said they stand for.
But saying "Libertarians for Trump" exposes libertarians to the full candidate, and not just a sound position. Now when Trump breaks campaign promises and causes all types of damage, libertarians look like a bunch of naive fools.
The only time it would be safe for Libertarians to be for the full candidate would be in the case of someone like Ron Paul. A person with a 30 yr track record of voting against state expansion. In other words, never again (most likely).
Libertarians should be for Liberty only. If there's a specific libertarian position that a politician is for, then throw your weight behind it. Otherwise, no compromise. No endorsing the whole pig.