I think that’s a very odd formulation, Heather. Like if only all the candidates had the same experiences, they’d have the same policy positions. Sure, experience can change one’s views, but I think most wouldn’t even understand that the way you mean it. There will be many causes of Trump’s deplorable views and lack of experience just isn’t the first thing that comes to mind, particularly if we’re going to then use the same logic to disqualify others with views worthy of support. Trump has a f*cked up world view and that’s enough to disqualify him.

We never know for certain who will make a good president or a bad one. But if we can’t use the candidate’s track record as a predictor, we might as well throw darts at a board. The starting point has to be track record and what they say about key policies of interest. Stein has no track record, but very progressive policies, while as I said, that Clinton would likely deliver most effectively on so many bad policies is more a cause for worry than celebration.

Re donations, I hardly know where to start given the massive evidence of money influence in the US system, so it’s incredibly trusting of you to think politicians aren’t fundamentally compromised in a system so awash with cash. Personally, I think Trump is telling the truth when he says he always gives to politicians when they ask because it always pays off later, and that that is the sign of a broken system. And it’s not just about outright corruption anyway, but about being immersed in a system set up by elites to maintain their elite positions. One becomes inculcated to acting on behalf of the 1% without even thinking about it. This is the fundamental fact of the last 40 years of US politics.

This discussion isn’t about the specifics of the Clinton Foundation or her emails, but since you raise it, the FBI did find wrong-doing, but said they hadn’t prosecuted others who’d done similar, so wouldn’t prosecute Hillary either. Only fair perhaps, but what a dismal statement on the state of the rule of law in the US and hardly something Hillary supporters can brag about.

Probably the main reason I’m against Trump is his lack of experience. He’s just not capable of running a country. His sexism, racism, anti-Muslim bigotry, constant lies etc are symptoms not causes.

I’ve seen no evidence that Stein would be a better president than Clinton. She would be better than Trump and Johnson, but that’s not a very high bar.

Receiving donations from Wall Street doesn’t mean you’re owned by them. Obama received donations from most of the same people. Giving paid speeches was her job and some were to Wall Street firms, but as I wrote about earlier, they are only a small fraction both in terms of time and money. I’m not saying this about you, but I find a lot of the criticism re the speeches to be jealous, self-righteous, virtue signalling.

There is no evidence that there’s anything wrong with the Clinton Foundation either though I admit that there’s a problem with perception that she needs to sort out.

And the FBI found no deliberate wrong-doing re her e-mails. She’s admitted she stuffed up and wouldn’t do it again, but personally I’m getting sick of it. I want to hear what she would do in the future.

Respectfully nicky, how can experience possibly be the reason you’d choose Hillary? All other things being equal, of course experience is better than a lack of experience. But other things are so far from being equal in this case that it seems surreal to me that this could be the deciding factor, as though invading countries is somehow similar enough to not invading them, or that being owned by Wall St is somehow similar enough to not being owned, that it needs almost a coin toss to decide.

I’m not against the Donald due to his lack of experience, or that fact is so far down the list of reasons that it’s practically not worth mentioning. And Hillary’s experience positively condemns her. We don’t have to guess whether we’re taking a risk that her foreign policy will be neocon; she has demonstrated it beyond a doubt. She has been tested and failed. That her experience would mean she is more efficient and effective is positively terrifying. It’s one of the biggest reasons not to support her.

Obviously we’d go for Stein in that case. But if it were between Hillary and Jill, I’m less sure, maybe I’d go for Hillary. Jill has so much less experience.

If it was down to Stein vs Trump, I’d go with Stein.

Even the Patheos article shows Stein isn’t anti-vax, but even if she was, it is a sad comment that that might dis-qualify her, while Clinton’s warmongering and so many other anti-progressive positions that have done and continue to do more damage, are deemed acceptable. And I still can’t believe that if it were Stein vs Trump, you would drop your lesser-of-two-evils stance because of Stein’s vax/homeopathy positions.

Thanks. I think your right about the prospects for progress. I lot of the world looked to US democracy as an inspiration in developing their own systems, including us, but many improved on it or have continued to move forward. We’re always looking at positive things other countries have done for ideas on what could work here. It’s a shame the US tends not to do that. As you say, it would be a benefit.

That’s one of the things I like about NZ’s electoral system, which is more representative. The Green’s get enough votes (10.7% last election) to give them good parliamentary representation and a strong voice without being in charge. Basically how it works here is a party gets the same percentage of seats as the percentage of the vote you get as long as you get at least 5% of the national vote. There’s a bit more to it than that – I won’t bore you with the full details, but if you’re interested, you can see how it works here. I personally like a lot of Green policies, and I think you’re right about how important the climate change issue is. Their voice being stronger has had a positive effect on the policies of the bigger parties.

I think you’re the only country in the OECD that has life appointments for the Supreme Court. I’m not sure whether or not term limits are a good idea, but there do seem to be politicians and judges who carry on past the time they can do a good job, sometimes for purely political reasons. I think you’re right that needs to be dealt with somehow.

I agree with how difficult it would be to change. 75% is a pretty high bar. We changed our electoral system with a 53% vote. (We don’t have a formal written constitution like most countries.)