This November the majority of Americans did not vote for either one of the two least liked presidential candidates in US history.
It’s no wonder. In the last days of election, American voters were left with an unappealing choice:
On the one hand, they could vote for a candidate who has sold over $165 billion worth of weapons to nations that had contributed to the Clinton foundation, is one of the leading advocates for replacing governments (including democracies) that do not support US corporate interests, was the main architect for the repressive anti-democratic coup against a center-left president in Honduras, pursued aggressive action against whistleblowers warning Americans of the growing power of its government’s surveillance over them and supports “free trade” policies that hand over democratic power to international corporations.
On the other hand, they could vote for a candidate spouting xenophobic threats and economic promises who inherited a substantial amount of money, has gone bankrupt multiple times, is on record as having lost more than a billion dollars in one year alone, has a track record of destroying almost all communities in which he has large-scale investments, was charged and settled with the government for racist economic practices, used undocumented labor to undercut wages, has admitted to not paying US income taxes because “it was smart,” started a criminally fraudulent university and misused his charitable funds for personal gain.
Such a choice reveals the fundamental danger the country is in. Indeed, if anything, their very names on the ballot highlight how desperately the nation needs to be politically and…