If America really is in the distressing realm of "least awful", I think Gary Johnson wins.
I watched some more of the "What is Aleppo" video, and it did seem possible that he had a contextual flap from an out-of-the-blue question, and his response after was a little garbled, but he did at least seem to suggest that America supporting regime opposition was not a good thing, which I can at least an agree with (not that America is the only culprit (the UK is just as bad), nor that anyone else need agree with my views!) I make these contextual misunderstanding from time to time in my own work. In contrast to the fact that in my own work I do not send business-related e-mails from a personal e-mail address, nor do I claim that my company can complete ludicrously expensive work that will be paid for by another company.
I think allowing the best-performing third-candidate into the debates, regardless of how they're polling would be an incredibly useful addition to your democracy. Given a two-horse race, I certainly lean towards Hillary on social policy, but it's been a little difficult to establish how the two stand on economic policy from across the pond. Can anyone enlighten me?
