A common thread that joins the supporters of Mr. Trump, Ms. Stein, and Mr. Johnson is a burning desire to up end the status quo. That is also a key motivator of a common disparagement of Ms. Clinton.
So riddle me this… Taking a 10 year view, which candidate is most likely to bring real change?
Neither Ms. Stein nor Mr. Johnson have any realistic chance of being elected so 10 years out a vote either way has little or no impact. Sounds like you justed voted for no change or… The staus quo whether that was you intention or not.
Mysteriously to me, Mr. Trump actually does have a chance of being elected. Looking at the ideas he’s spoken about, it looks like he will lower taxes on the rich, gut social security, and reduce the minimum wage among other things. Ten years out it seems like we’ll have a whole lot more of the income and opportunity inequality that drives much of the passion for taking down the status quo (assuming we’re not all dead from nine years and 10 months of Trump induced nuclear winter – that’ll put global warming propaganda to rest). So very likely much more of the same… or again a vote for status quo whether intended or not.
Is Ms Clinton the perfect alternative to status quo? No, but perhaps it’s time to grow up and quit expecting perfection from anybody or claiming it for one’s self. She clearly has some issues, but 10 years out if we have more things like 8 million kids covered by insurance, or better support for adoptions, or a less toxic environment through better pollution controls, all changes she helped drive, that doesnt sound like just more of the D.C. same same old same old.
That much disparaged vote for the staus quo is actually the vote most likely to result in real change…