Here's the deal. Nothing new. The two major parties are offering two shitty choices for President in 2016. Possibly worse than usual.
Hillary Rodham Clinton (68) represents everything that is wrong with American politics. She is the emodiment of corruption. Her stream-of-dishonesty shows that we have no idea what she will do as President, other than continuing the financial enrichment of the Clintons, at the expense of the country. I would cut my throat before voting for this despicable person. Then she would encourage my corpse to vote for her.
Donald John Trump (70) portrays himself as an outsider, and he is definitely not the usual Republican (if he is a Republican). He was part of the crony capitalism that Clinton thrives on. Given Trump's impulsive alteration of his basic views and his tendency to make weird pronouncements about everything and everyone, it would be difficult to vote for him, if not impossible.
Trump's speeches are entertaining. The only reason to watch Clinton's is to see if her head will explode, as in "Brain Dead" (CBS).
Voting for Trump is a gamble. His main opponent's incompetence and dishonesty makes her a false option. Voting for Trump or Clinton would be a wasted vote. Again, nothing new.
If Donald Trump wants a line that will resonate across large parts of the electorate, he could do worse than simply this: "I promise as president to follow the Constitution." Thanks to Barack Obama, that is unfortunately a new, low bar for the presidency.|
Kimberley Strassel, 4 Aug 16 Wall Street Journal
Which leaves us with two choices, Jill Stein (66) and Gary Johnson (63). I voted for Johnson in 2012; he has not wavered, so I will vote for him again. Not because he is less awful than the others, but because he is the best choice. Better by far.
As a libertarian, I agree with Johnson on most issues. More importantly, he has a philosophy based on protecting the Constitution and our rights. Johnson won't stick his finger in the air to make policy choices. He understands that he serves us, not the other way around. Gary Johnson sincerely believes in smaller government. He doesn't just say it.
Some Libertarians [see: ANTI-GARY BS] are unhappy with Johnson because he is too pragmatic for them, not libertarian enough. That is as absurd as complaining that he has appeared on "Red Eye." Gary Johnson has proven he can work with Democrats and Republicans without compromising his principles. A "pure" libertarian would not have as broad appeal and, honestly, the idea of an election is to get the most votes, without pandering. In a recent statement, the former New Mexico governor said his fundraising shows that many Americans "are ready to join our effort to offer an experienced, credible alternative" to the GOP and Democratic tickets. Exactly!
Some non-libertarians have posited that Bill Weld should be heading the ticket, perhaps because he is considered less libertarian than Johnson. That's their opinion and, with a Libertarian in the White House, they will be free to express it. The Never-Never-Ever-Trump forces have inserted a new candidate, who stands little chance of getting on the ballot in most states. Evan McMullin (40) seems to be appealing to Libertarians, who already have a candidate, and conservatives. His most notable credit is a 10-year stint in the CIA. He appears to be the only candidate who thinks genocide should be taken seriously. A life-time Republican, he just became an independent to run for office. No doubt, he would continue the policies that have annoyed so many Republicans, but that's a moot point, since he hasn't got a chance in hell to win the election.
The Libertarian ticket offers two former governors, who won as Republicans in so-called blue states. They have executive experience and government experience, but it doesn't seem to have soiled them. The same cannot be said for the former Secretary of State and the tycoon-reality TV star, so the choice is clear, obviously…