The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance

[Diana]

Just so everyone is clear here, I'm not "backing Stein."

That is not to say that I don't agree with the Green Party's stance on the issues.

I provided this "at a glance" just for ease of looking at the issues. Many people don't really look because they are already enmeshed with a party or an idea. For instance, a friend of mine is a self-professed Democrat, and yet she abhors fracking, but she is a staunch Clinton advocate. When I told her about the fracking, she was taken aback after being very aggressive in her support of Clinton to me. 

As for how much a vote counts, or what it counts for, this is my working theory:

I think the powers-that-be (and I use this term loosely and by no means point it at merely at corporations) have the ability to guide things the way they want them to go for their own reasons (which may include an illusion they are "helping" the ignorant masses). It follows (in my estimation) that a US presidential vote would be something used for many reasons, but not for actually electing who the public votes for. For one, the vote can compile statistics. 

Since the 50's and computers, we have had the ability to compile complex systems of data, and that data includes reactions when certain stimuli is put out (fear, trends, information, corruption, 911, etc.). An event happens and data is compiled analyzing the reactions to that event, for instance.

Regarding the US presidential election, data may be compiled for many reasons. When Gore lost the vote, and everyone suspected it was corrupted, data may have been compiled as to how mush corruption the public would take before really rebelling. This is just a possible—linear and simple—scenario.

So, in my opinion, this is why a vote counts. If you don't vote, it's like not making a choice. People operate unconsciously all the time and don't consciously choose and yet they are affected by their choice not to choose. Not voting does not send a message that you protest against a corrupt system; it sends the message (which is compiled as data) that you don't participate for whatever reason and that you aren't a voice for change, rather you are a voice for possible apathy. The more people who vote here, suggests that more people care what the government is doing, so the powers-that-be may adjust how much control they estimate they can get away with.

I am not saying that those who choose not to vote are wrong. I'm just saying why I do vote.

Regarding Hilary Clinton and the alleged idea that a lifetime of public service is proof that she is serving the good. There are many scenarios that could fit that life decision. If Hilary Clinton had integrity, some of the allegations against her would not be there. For instance, she would not have accepted super pacs. The idea that one has to work within a corrupt system and comply with it's parameters has not worked yet for the good of all, and in my opinion it never will work to affect change. Taking a stance outside of the corruption may not work immediately, but it plants seeds and creates a place for people to stretch beyond the limiting and corrupt two-party system, rather than feeling trapped into voting for the lesser of two evils.