I'll keep it simple, as well.

Trump will destroy America.  

There's multiple evidence that Donald Trump is a rapist.  

There's PROOF that he's misogynistic and a terrible business man.  

He lies and flip-flops constantly on his positions, can't remember anything (probably has Alzheimer's, since he couldn't remember who David Duke is in an interview.)  

He's being sued for multiple fraudulent business practices.  Has filed bankruptcy four times, and couldn't even keep a casino open.  A casino - which is a cash cow industry. Given what he inherited, he's done worst running Trump Industries than if he'd passively invested in the S&P500 all these years.

And he has absolutely no clue or skills for the job he's seeking.

He's running solely on the theme that "he's a billionaire" - but somehow refuses to even release his tax returns (which would probably prove him worth far less, despite the fact he previously promised to release them by now.)  And that's something that Presidential candidates have done regularly for quite a long time.... including Nixon, who was under audit.

It's honestly likely that Trump'll bring around a nuclear attack on the US.  (Missiles or a terrorist nuke.)

Folks, if he's elected - we'll probably be seeing the end of the United States. Even if he flakes out and steps down a month after election - which he could 'cause he backs out of things a lot, along with his teeny tiny hands - that leaves Pence, a rabid homophobic, at the reins.

Trump is likely not a billionaire, which is one of the reasons he won't release his tax returns. He's also not honest or sincere - he's a TV actor, and a good one. Believe anything he says at your peril.

Hillary - also dishonest. But I don't think being dishonest is mutually exclusive from being well-intentioned when it counts. I can live with her dishonesty, because I think she's sincere about what she believes, and she's spent a lifetime helping people who need help. I cannot live with Trump's dishonesty, because he's spent a lifetime screwing people over. It's a lesser of two evils for me.

I don't think the U.S. needs to be made great again. Y'all seem pretty alright.

Would've felt new and exciting to see a Trump/Sanders race. As is, it's all gotten a bit depressing. Jacob Silverman wrote, "...we'll soon see a sentient pile of corporate TPS reports shadowbox an angry carny for the country's top prize." More or less. I stopped following.

Good luck to you U.S. citizens with a vote that I would find very difficult to cast.

Bogey -

I agree with you... to an extent.  In fact, I'd say 95%.

Hillary is far, far, far safer than Trump.  Yes, she's corrupt and dishonest.

But she's sane, which is a definite plus.

Honestly?  I don't think she's well intentioned.  Don't forget, this is a woman who openly supported DOMA - an Amendment meant to cement unequal status for some United States citizens (those who were gay) right into the Constitution.  Why? Because it was politically expedient.  

And she's also spoken out loudly against progressive (and very rational) fixes to our economy that, by all rights, she should be in favor of.  For instance, a Medicare for all single payer option.  Instead, she begrudgingly threw a "public option" into Obamacare due to the Sanders pressure... while making a point of not telling anyone that it's *only* good for people over 55.  In other words, she's sneaky and has to be backed into a wall to do the "right thing."

Is she the lesser of two evils when it comes to her vs. Trump?  Oh Gosh, yes indeed!

But this election, I *cannot* vote for her.  Because when one consistently votes the lesser of two evils, you bolster the chances that that's all you'll be given, again and again.

And the only thing worse than the lesser of two evils is "evil given a mandate."  I assure you, if Hillary wins, she'll wave that success around as "proof" that she's terrific.  Vs. the fact she got into office ONLY because she was running against someone far worse.

Quoted from Heretic Jacob Silverman wrote, "...we'll soon see a sentient pile of corporate TPS reports shadowbox an angry carny for the country's top prize."

OMG - that's a dead-on description!  God help us all.

FWIW, we're really not THAT great a country.  There's such a cultural rift right now, and a drastic skew towards anti-intellectualism that it's scary.  The United States is heading for Idiocracy.  

And Mike Judge thought he was writing a satire....  

Quoted from wonkavite But this election, I *cannot* vote for her.  Because when one consistently votes the lesser of two evils, you bolster the chances that that's all you'll be given, again and again. (

Janet-

Isn't the lesser of two evils the only choice we ever really have? I can't think of a single Presidential election where I sprinted to the polling place, cast my vote, did a fist pump and spiked the ball. We never get the most qualified people to run for office, and it's no wonder why given the public scrutiny they have to endure. So we're left with people who covet power - sometimes ruthless, often unprepared, and invariably susceptible to advisers we don't even know.

I'll hold my nose, vote for Hillary, and hope for the best. A vote for anyone else only assists Trump - just being real.

Bogey -

While I fully understand your position (and Phil's doing the same as you, incidentally), it actually took a UK citizen to point this out to me:

The concept of "throwing away your vote by voting third party" is actually flawed, given our voting process.  Thanks to the electoral college, the US isn't a one-person-one-vote true democracy.  

If you're in a swing state - yes.. it makes sense to vote HRC out of terror of Trump..  

If you're in a predominantly blue or red state, then actually - voting FOR the mainstream candidates out of fear is throwing away one's vote.  

Because it's the amount of votes that a third party candidate gets (and polling numbers) that helps qualify them for better inclusion in the next election: debates, etc. (If our system wasn't absolutely rigged, there'd be four people on the debate stage this year.) IE: if you live in a non-swing state and don't vote your conscience, nothing will ever, ever change.

I *would've* sprinted to my polling place this year if Sanders had been the nominee (then again, I live in NYC - where 25,000+ primary votes - including mine and Phil's - were somehow "purged".)

I think there comes a time - and the time may be now - that one has to say "no more", and stand up to corruption even when it holds a Trump gun to your head.

Myself, I'd invoke two analogies.  One: imagine being held up at gunpoint...  do you forever hand over your wallet?  Or when do you realize that it's just encouraging the muggings to continue, and fight back?

And: "incrementalism" is dead wrong when lives are at stake (as they are here, due to the ravaged economy and other US issues.)  

Thank Goodness that *some* of the public eventually woke up, fought slavery, and battled for women's rights to vote (to use two extreme examples.)  Because - compromising with evil is... still evil.

And on top of that - I don't expect Hillary to do more than a mediocre job - which will pave the way for the GOP to point to a still-lousy economy, a wasted 4 or 8 years, and push someone just as bad on us next election.... maybe even worse, and win.

Hilary Clinton being sane very much depends on what one deems insane.

Whoever the US citizens vote for is going to affect the entire world. The US control the economy - the single biggest thing on this planet. It's what makes the world go around. It's what we fought for control of during WW2. This shit is important. It will determine our future mindset. It's very interesting what's happening int he world right now... and it's all down to characters like Trump.

Janet-

1) I always hand over my wallet at gunpoint, because I don't own a gun.

2) Fighting for a good cause is always the way to go, and if there were a qualified third party candidate, I'd be with you. But there is no Michael Bloomberg, Steve Forbes, or even Ralph Nader in this one. The two others on the ballot are woefully unqualified. Good people, but not for President. Bernie would have been smart to stay true to his independent status and run as an independent from Day 1. But he didn't...

3) I'm not on board with the electoral college argument. I'd rather not see a Gore/Bush scenario where Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the election. I think that's bad for the country, and would hope Hillary wins both the popular and electoral votes.

4) For what it's worth, I think Trump's success in this election will open the door to "qualified outsiders" in the future. I think you'll see Howard Schultz enter the arena the first chance he gets.  

Quoted from Bogey Janet- Fighting for a good cause is always the way to go, and if there were a qualified third party candidate, I'd be with you.

Are you saying a two term governor who started his own business and grew it into a 1000 employee business is not qualified?

Quoted from Grandma Bear Are you saying a two term governor who started his own business and grew it into a 1000 employee business is not qualified?

Yes, I'm saying that. I've listened to him on televised town hall meetings, and while he seems like a nice guy, his knowledge of foreign affairs and national defense issues is, I'm sorry to say, vague at best, incompetent at worst.

Also, 1,000 employees isn't really that many. That's still considered a "small business" under most of the U.S. Small Business Administration standards. And he was governor of a state that ranks 37/50 in GDP.  

Again - nice guy, competent business owner, decent governor of small economic state, but President of the United States?

Quoted from Bogey Again - nice guy, competent business owner, decent governor of small economic state, but President of the United States?

A harvard law professor community organizer  and first term senator is better? IMHO, no one is ever perfect to be president. Most of them have lots of ideas, but soon realize once they are elected that things work a little different than they thought. I'll take Johnson over any of the other.

And that's the full extent of my political comments. But you all can carry on.

Quoted from Grandma Bear A harvard law professor community organizer  and first term senator is better?

He wasn't a Harvard law professor. He taught at the University of Chicago (Constitutional Law). He was also a civil rights lawyer for 11 years and an IL State Senator for 7 years before a U.S. Senator.

Maybe President Obama didn't have the central casting experience for the White House, but Gary Johnson isn't even in his league when it comes to Obama's pre-election knowledge of the issues and his intellect. Last week, Johnson blanked on national TV when asked what he would do about Aleppo. "What's Aleppo?" he said. Check please.

Quoted from wonkavite Clinton: Horribly corrupt, and not at all dedicated to a true progressive platform.  Her only real concern is cementing her "legacy" as the first woman President, and getting votes.  Don't forget - she supported DOMA.  No rational person who cares about people (which is kind of a prerequisite for governing), would have done so.  And the email server issue - a serious breach.  (Ben Ghazi - OTOH - was a witch hunt, IMO.) If Clinton's elected, things will just drag on as they have been.  Economic structural woes that won't be addressed. But her donors will be happy. Trump: An absolute disaster.  Clearly, a narcissist sociopath - who very well may have Alzheimers (his father died of that inheritable disease.)  A man who's being currently sued for underaged rape (and there's a witness), who has a track record for not paying the contractors he works with, is monstrously misogynist, thin-skinned, has no political knowledge or capacity for diplomacy. Who is on record of having been prescribed a version of Speed in the past, and probably is still on it.  And who is a very, very lousy businessman.  Speaking as someone who worked in Finance for over a decade with HNW (that's High Net Worth) clientele - i.e.: $5M, $50M and up), I can tell you - there's something very, very incompetent about a person who inherits over a million dollars, and his job from Daddy - files four bankruptcies - and doesn't even do better than investing passively in the S&P500.  The man's completely incompetent.  And that's even *if* he's worth what he claims.  And he's likely to start a nuclear war as President.  If he wins, I'm heading to Canada full speed.

I agree with this so much! So exactly.

I voted Sanders in the primary, by far better than anyone else in my opinion. I really, really wish he had won, but he didn't, so, as much as I hate to do so, I'm voting for Clinton.

I know that many Sanders supporters are going to vote Stein, but the problem with that is that a stronger Green Party (or any party on the left) means a greater chance that the Republican party wins presidential elections, because it splits the vote on the left side of the electorate. This is why it is a two party system. I wish it wasn't, but it is. I think that the only time that voting Green doesn't hurt the Democrats is in the few states that have a top two primary (I know that Washington has this, I think that California does, Louisiana has something similar, and maybe there are a couple of more states). That's the only time when it isn't splitting the vote.

Hunter -

Thanks!  I voted Sanders as well (although my vote got "purged" along with about 25K other votes in NYC alone). That said, Sanders was heads and tails over every other single candidate; a man with integrity, intelligence and dedicated to more than lip service to get votes.

I completely understand people who end up voting for Hillary out of fear that Trump may win.  (Hubby's going to take that strategy as well.)

I can't. Choosing the lesser of two evils - while understandable - means that the truly qualified and optimal candidates who play by the rules will never win.  

Plus, I'm a resident of NYS, which is overwhelmingly blue.  Therefore, if I vote for Hillary, *that's* when I'll be throwing my vote away.  

Better to vote my conscience. If the Green party earns sufficient votes, that'll provide *some* leverage that Hillary won't back out on the compromises she made to supposedly woo the Bernie supporters.  

And really - when it comes down to it - if Trump wins... I place the blame directly on Hillary and the DNC.  Both of whom knew quite well that Bernie polled better against Trump than she did.  But they still rigged the elections in her favor.  (She didn't even have the guts to debate Sanders one last time. Neither did Trump.  And they both got away with it.)

No fan of HRC - but fingers crossed that she wins over Trump.  He would be an utter disaster. She would be - just more of the same old limping along.  The middle class will continue to crumble - and the GOP will continue to stonewall everything she does.  :/