A Case for Gary Johnson, pt III

If you'd like, feel free to insert 'ANYONE' for Gary Johnson.  

This November, he'll be receiving my vote - unless I exercise my right to write someone in.  It's been my little tradition to do at least one write-in per election, though I typically the write-in for some small contest (perhaps even unopposed).  Yet, this may be the year to do it in the big one.  

How great would it if a last minute write-in campaign came along and took the whole thing?  

My suggestion for the write-in is the current first lady. 

I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton, and I will not vote for Donald Trump.  

I'll just say it: the emails are a big thing for me.  As this election has gone on, I've heard a lot of people, from a lot of different sides, talk about the emails.  I've read federal documents, and looked into the matter a decent amount, and: they matter.  

[A Rant - a teachers can get in trouble for questionable Facebook posts.  When an NBA owner gets caught making racist comments, he is kicked out of the league and given a lifetime ban.  Pete Rose bet on some baseball games and cannot be in the hall of fame.  Tom Brady might know that a football is slightly deflated, and this potential knowledge gets brought to the supreme court and ends up in suspension.  Billy Bush listens to offense comments and is suspended for it.  Someone pees outside and gets placed on a sex offender list.  Yet, the secretary of state can use a private email server, delete over 30,000 emails and still be a candidate for president.  Really?  End of rant.]  

I'm of the opinion that doing certain things should bring about certain consequences.  One of these consequences is that when you delete over 30,000 emails when under investigation, you should not be eligible for the highest office in the land.  

As the election is getting closer, I've heard many people express just how bad they find all candidates.  (The man who's name is on this blog title fits that categorization as well.  There's a very good chance that he wouldn't be a good president.  But, of any viable - and here I mean on all ballots - option, I think he'd be the best.  He has bipartisan experience, has been successful in the business world, and expresses a willingness to think differently about issues.)  

If you fit into any of the following - unable to vote for a major party, disgusted by our presidential choices, fearful of the election, unsatisfied by how things are currently done - I challenge you to use your vote to say that.  Vote for Gary Johnson, write someone in, or vote for another non-major party option.  That says a lot more than anyone is willing to admit.  

There's one final thing I want to say about this election, and then I'm done.  And it's to democrats.  

In 2008 and in 2016, there were two great, inventive candidates.  These candidates inspired hope and progress.  They fought the same foe .  In both fights, it felt as if an inventive, interesting candidate was fighting the status quo.  Hilary Clinton was that status quo, and is essentially the worst kind of Republican.  Especially for other people that were supporting Bernie Sanders, a candidate that was even able to get republican votes, it seems to me that simply voting for Clinton because she's in the same 'party' goes directly against the spirit Bernie inspired.  

You don't have to do that.

Anyway, this whole thing sucks.  I'm out.