I wish the answer was simple, but it isn't.  There are people who no longer believe their vote counts anymore; there are people too lazy to vote.  There are people who truly believe both of these candidates have what it takes.  There are people who back these candidates who have ties to big banks and other corporations.  If there are two things politics here in America are driven by, the first would be money, the second would be fear.

At risk of making everyone on the site hate me, I am a Trump supporter.
I have many reasons for this, but I'll say it simply.
I want a safe country, a strong military, a stable economy, and a Supreme Court that upholds the Constitution of the United States. After listening to Trump's speeches in their entirety, reading his books, and ignoring the media in their attempts to make him sound bad,I believe he will uphold these values. I don't believe he is a hatemonger of any kind. He wouldn't be as successful as he is, if he truly was any of those things. The media is exceptional at taking sound bytes from speeches, pulling them out of context, and implying that they mean something different than their original intent. I believe Trump wants prosperity for all Americans, not one group or the other.
The most important reason for my Trump vote though, is the candidates' stances on Isis. I just don't believe Hillary is willing or able to address this problem in a way that reflects how bad it is.
I am not a racist, or a homophobe, or any of the other hateful things that Trump supporters have been called of late.
I just vote in a way that is best for our country. I vote for all Americans, not any group in particular.
I read a lot of history, and vote in all the primaries.
I've had opportunities to watch Hillary Clinton in various capacities for 24 years.
And after all of that, and what has to be one of the ugliest sloggiest elections in U.S. history, I will vote for Trump in November.
That's my reasoning.
But since I come here to play games, bring on the bots. Heheheheheh.

It seems to me that the violence at the Trump rallies comes from those who oppose him. When I see news about it, the story usually reads that protesters against Trump caused the trouble. As far as I can tell, it's not his supporters who are violent there. In this case, I think Trump would be damned if he did anything to moderate it, and damned if he didn't.

One thing's for sure, it's going to be an interesting six weeks coming up.

I'll jump in.

While I'm not necessarily for Trump, I'm definitely against Hillary.

She's untrustworthy, the way she handled her emails while Secretary of State proves it. She knew she was doing wrong when she set up that private server, but she didn't care, she set it up anyway. Then there's the FBI's conclusion that she was very careless with very sensitive material. Birds of a feather flock together, her husband should have been impeached, and would have been if the human rights emergency in Kosovo hadn't appeared. Then there's the two weeks where she didn't do any campaigning, instead she was behind closed doors with big name celebrities doing fund raising. I have to wonder what kind of deals she's brokering for those donations to her campaign that she doesn't want any one else to know about, not to mention the ivory tower it puts her in. And finally, Donald Trump may have said many questionable things, but he's never stooped so low as to call Hillary's supporters deplorable. That she would say that about hard working Americans, just because they support Trump, definitely disqualifies her.

If I had to choose between Trump and Hillary, I'd choose Trump. No question.

I'm not from USA, and maybe I'm to yung or to stupid to understand the confusing politics, as well. But here's a fiew questions, sorry if they are stupid ones:
Everyone seems to be talking about choosing Hillary or Trump, choosing one of the lesser evils. But they can't be the only ones, can they? They are the most talked about ones, true, but shouldn't there be more people to choose from and vote for? Unless there are only 2 parties and I got this thing totally wrong.
There allways seems to be talk about Hillary/trump/whoever saying that and that against this person, or insulting someone. How much of it is actually true? Are there actual videos of that person saying so, or is it just a clame of the brother of your uncle's friend that allways talks about politics, or something that you read on a untrustworthy news site. For real life there are allways videos (even those can be faked, however), but if something's written on a paper or on the internet it could just as well be someone else. I'm sure Hillary or Trump have a lot of people behind them, and those tend to answer all the emails and deal with lots of things as well.
Ah, I'm confused now. I probably am getting this all wrong anyway, guess I should just enjoy the drama. Good luck, Americans!

Thank you for the answer, Figment. That clears it up.
But then, forgive my stupidity ... but if most people don't like eather of them, why is there even talk about voting for one of them? There are others, I'm sure  you will find someone who does work out for you. Why would you vote for John or Jane if you hate boath of them, if you can just vote for Bob?

@Figment, I don't think so. If that was several years ago, processes have changed here... and while it may be hard to come in and imigrate, it's definitely not impossible. Blindness and being on disability wouldn't be a huge thing. I have quite a few friends who moved successfully to Canada and were on disability long enough for them to settle in and find a job. Here, it actually depends on what province you move to as well... but it's definitely be done recently.

@Mirage, thumbs up for your publically voicing that opinion, as I feel like anyone admitting to being a trump supporter on a public forum definitely has guts... but as Nocturnus said, it's nice to see someone who seems to be analysing the situation carefully. I will just say that while I agree that the Media loves a good story and pulls things out of context, looking at the overall picture as an outsider, I would say that there are clips and quotes from Trump that are pretty hard to read any other way than exactly how bad they sound. But then again, I'm also not 100% focusing on it, as I watch it to keep up with what's happening, just not as analytically since I don't live there. I still do my fair share of analysis though.

I'd love a none of the above option for elections, even here in the UK I struggle to decide who to vote for when our elections come up.
As for this election, I'm just waiting to see what happens to be honest. Unfortunately, I'm one of these people who finds politics really confusing for it's own good, and I don't know the best way to rectify that, I'd like to know more about the parties and things but there's no simple way of finding out what they stand for. Instead it's all a bunch of, well, political jargon, sometimes even technical terms.

It doesn't take wisdom to see how flawed politics in general is.

It's a good thing they call it congress because it definitely isn't progress!

Instead of representing the people as they should be they represent the corporations that put the most greese in their palms and bicker between the two parties.

Show me a Politician, and I'll show you a career criminal.

@Aaron, actually you can! vote none of the above in britain. it's called a spoiled balat, where instead of voting you effectively do something to make your balat paper void, last election I asked my dad to write in "I don't trust any of you" on the paper.

it's actually worth doing from a logical perspective because the vote is still officially counted as a spoiled balat and goes into the total number of votes counted in the constituency which affect the over all totals, indeed in every general election there is a count of spoiled balats which is usually used as a measure of dissatisfaction with the choices on offer.
I actually wish a lot more people in Britain new about this, since it's a very real and legitimate way to express a vote of no confidence in the various parties.

That being said, British politics is rather different over all, since while investment considerations do play their part, they're not as directly tied to campaigning in quite as blatant a way as in the states I think, plus the voting process and creation of prime minister is entirely different given that you vote in your constituency for your local mp, and she or he then represents you in parliament, and which party is in power is dictated by the maximum number of mps in parliament, ie, which party can get the most votes through on a given issue, and the prime minister is just the head of whichever party that is. So while you do! vote for the party you want, you don't vote directly for the prime minister, that just happens to be whoever is party leader at the time the party comes into power , nor does she or he have that much direct political power in and of themselves since while the pm chairs debates laws are voted on directly by the mps.

this also means that while most of the seats in parliament are one of the three main parties, conservative, labour, or liberal democrat, since you always get a number of candidates in any election for your local mp, there are always a few independents in parliament, plus representatives from a couple of smaller parties like the green party or Ukip (the uk independence party), indeed these days considering that labour and the conservatives have basically sold out on their perceived party lines, the idea of unified party sentiment is pretty much dying anyway, one reason why so many die hard conservatives are joining ukip, (which is actually a little scary).
That's btw why I didn't vote, nobody represents my! political ideals at all and the choices on offer didn't seem worth while from what I gathered from what they were actually saying of what they wanted for the country.

of course the main problem in british politics is that so much effort is spent on one party playing lots of little games to gain advantage in voting against another party, very few people actually remember that what their voting on matters, for example one party might agree to vote the way another party wants in return for the first party doing them a favour in a vote down the line.
it also doesn't help that each party has a party whip, aka, someone who's job it is to basically go and threaten mps with political suicide and ending their career if they don't vote as the party leadder decides, effectively meaning that even though the people of a british constituency have voted into power someone they believe will represent the interests of their area of the country, that person cannot vote against whatever his/her party wants even if they disagree without either voiding their career or joining another party.

As I said while not a money and mudslinging contest, politics in Britain really does seem so bound up with oneupmanship among the various parties that it doesn't really have much to do with actually doing any good at all, indeed frequently one party will oppose another just because! they usually do, one reason the liberal/labour coalition government was such a round disaster.

Btw, if you want to understand a bit of how politics works in britain, there is a great series called "inside the house of commons" which the bbc showed last year which is exactly what it sounds like, a very honest look at what happens inside westminster, how laws are past and what mps really do with their time, as well as all the funny little traditions and odd rituals.

Unfortunately the net affect of watching it was to convince me of something I only suspected, that while not motivated by corporate interest, politics in Britain is so much a closed system foreign to anything to do with real life or how people live that any hope of actual representation is nill. heck, even the mps have  taken to referring to westminster as hogwarts .

While I'm not keen on British politics though, I'm afraid the American variety scares me even more for precisely the reasons which nocturnus and figment have stated, that it's basically a two sided war fueled by money and rhetoric, and I find the idea that someone can be made a candidate and effectively become president just by slinging money around without any previous political office deeply frightening. Indeed it makes me a little glad that at least the pm over here has to first be elected as an mp, and then has to spend a few terms doing other jobs around the party and moving up the ladder of political office before getting the top job, (while of course being reelected along the way).

Not that we haven't had pm's who were right morons*cough Tony blaire *
*cough, but at least they're well practiced career morons .

WOW!
First, let me say a big Thank You, to all of you for not slamming me.
Family and friends on FB have called me such colorful things as racist, homophobe, xenophobe, uneducated, etc., etc., so it's very nice to come to a place where there are thoughtful responses and intelligent commentary.

@Nocturnis
Thank you. I had the same thought about Obama in 2008 and 2012, in that I hoped I was wrong about him and that he would be a great President.

@Mayana
To shed some more light on why it is that we don't have more candidates to choose from:
We actually do. About sixteen months prior to an election, all the would-be candidates for each party begin to campaign with their platforms. Maybe four months after that, there are televised political debates. Then, six months later, we have primaries. These miniature elections happen in each state, and you have the opportunity to vote for whichever candidate you like best from your chosen party. In that way, the choice eventually comes down to the top two candidates, one from each of the big parties. After all the primaries are finished, each party has its big convention, usually in late summer before the election. It is there that they officially nominate the top votegetter from those primaries. It's worth noting that they are not required to nominate the person who gets the most votes. If the party wanted to, it could choose someone else, but I don't think that's ever happened. It would create quite a public stir if it did. Originally, for the Republican party, we had twelve or fifteen possible candidates, and from all of them, Trump was chosen. I can't remember how many Democratic candidates there were, but I think it was three or four.
I hope that clarifies a little more about the political process.
But I'm not great at explaining things, so please ask questions if I have confused you.

@everyone else
I agree with you 1000% that our political election system is flawed, and controlled by ridiculous amounts of money. I also agree that it's controlled too much by the media. I often wonder if things might be different, if we could only listen to campaigns on the radio, taking away the theatrics of television.

Somebody mentioned how people vote against a candidate, not for their favorite, and that is so true! I have asked, practically begged, anybody to tell me why they like Hillary, and how they believe she will make America better than it is right now. Nobody will ever say. They just tell me how they hate Trump.
In any discussions I've had, I always tried my best to say what I wanted from Trump's leadership, or why I liked him. I left my thoughts about Hillary out of it, because I didn't see how that would lead to meaningful conversation. Unfortunately, more often than not, my conversation partners wouldn't do the same.

So again, thank you all for treating me with respect.

Where as I trust neither of them.  One of them says she didn't misuse classified information, goes out of her way to call some 13million US citizens deplorable, has absolutely no idea what the word transparency means and how important it is to her being president.  Meanwhile, the other doesn't seem to understand what being a president is, running his campaign like a huge reality TV show, throwing out what I deem to be hateful speech and bigoted comments which, if they are scripted by others make him woefully ignorant and naive, and if stated by him make him one of the most disgusting people I could ever imagine in such a position of power.  What I think voters are seeing right now though, which is heavily influencing the election, is that one candidate seems to be focused on at the very least, the interests of her party and trying to unify it as much as possible, which is why she now supports some of the same proposals she once debated against in the primaries when Sanders was running against her, while the other seems to be focused on himself, going so far as to say that he has entertained the idea that he might not serve as president if he wins the election.  If Hilary wins, she'll have done so not because she's truly the greater of the two, but because she's played her cards very well, attacking Trump on a scale many if not most Americans agree on.  Trump's campaign has been riddled with problems from the very beginning, from supposed association with white supremacy groups, to people making questionable statements and being arrested for misconduct and violence.