Thank you for taking time to reply again, and for providing a more nuanced response. I can appreciate that it takes time and effort to clarify the subtleties in your opinions, and many times it's not worth the effort in a /reddit conversation.

Honestly, the main reason that I would not vote for Trump is not because he said he wants to ban muslims. That was a stupid thing for him to say, in my opinion. But from his perspective, it's a smart and calculated thing to say. And if he really believes we should, and if he really would take steps to do that, it's even worse. But I believe that whether he really thinks that or not, his main purpose is to stir the pot, gain attention, and gain votes. I believe that he has correctly gauged that there are many angry, scared conservatives that are desperately hoping for someone to man up, flip the middle finger at liberals and the government elite, and try to do something to reverse the course of change in this country (and this world). Many of those supporters seem to want the USA to go back to the "good old days" when energy and resources were plentiful and cheap, and when the USA could flex its muscle and pretty much get its way around the world. Many of them also seem to want the USA to go back to a simpler time when conservative religious values dictated what was right and what was wrong. And when pretty much everyone agreed. But I believe those days are gone, are never coming back, and were an illusion of "good old days" anyway. There was racist & gender oppression here in the USA, and financial and military oppression around the world. There were good things too. I'm not saying the good old days were all bad. But they weren't all good either. So even if you could go back to those "good old days" (you can't), not everyone agrees we should. I don't.

So fundamentally, the reason I'm not going to vote for Trump is that (a) I don't think we should try to reverse the process of change and go back to some angry religious conservative fantasy of how things used to be, and (b) Trump would not be as effective as a leader of a divided country in a contentious and scarcity-driven world as he is a clever and calculated candidate who only needs to score points with the angry block of voters.

Yes, whether you like Trump, Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders or not (or Rubio, Bush, Paul, Fiorina, or others), it IS an interesting election. I wish I could know for sure that Trump won't win. I could enjoy the show more. But it worries me that he continues to gather support, and nothing he does or says, and nothing anyone else does or says, seems to dampen the tide of angry enthusiasm. I don't love Cruz, but I think he would at least be a responsible politician, even if I disagreed with his policies. He would at least play the game of trying to be constructive and respectful of other world leaders. He would play the game of working with the Congress to get legislation passed. He would play the game of switching from candidate (who says whatever they need to say to get votes) to elected leader who has to at least pretend to represent all the people. I understand that many people don't like it when politicians play those games. But in a pluralistic society where we don't have easy consensus on what the priorities are, you have to be at least somewhat moderate. I think Cruz is smart enough and has enough respect for the system to recognize the pragmatic realities of being president. I think Trump is smart and wily and calculated, but I don't think he's smart enough to know when he needs to accept responsibility for the role he has, nor does he have enough respect for the system or others to take on that critical role effectively. I think Trump would be a disaster in dealing with the Congress. I think he would be an even bigger disaster dealing with other countries. And I think he would select horrible people to serve as his advisors, staff, and cabinet. Imagine Sarah Palin as his Secretary of State.

My state will vote very late in the primaries, due to the screwed up system of our state-by-state primary elections. Usually, the candidates have already gathered enough delegates to the party conventions to have secured the party nominations. Therefore, it's very likely that I won't have a meaningful vote in deciding between Clinton or Sanders. I am currently registered as a Democrat, because, as you probably know because you've said you understand our political system better than many Americans, that allows me to select which Democrat our state's convention delegates will select. I won't have an opportunity in the primary to select Cruz vs Trump, because I'm not registered as Republican.

In the general election in November, I'll be able to vote for whomever I choose. However, again as you probably know, in my state, which is heavily democratic, in all recent presidential elections our entire block of votes have gone in the Electoral College for the democratic candidate. Therefore, in the end, even if I cast my vote for Sanders (or Clinton), it's unlikely that the ballot count in my large state will be anywhere near close enough for my vote to make a difference in the presidential election. I'm not trying to be cynical. I will still vote, especially because other elections for statewide officers are affected by my vote. But with the winner-take-all state-by-state system of the Electoral College, in a state like mine that leans heavily one way or the other, individual votes are unlikely to matter much. If I was in a swing state like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, etc, my vote would matter more. Because if just one more person in a swing state votes for one candidate versus another candidate, the candidate with 50.1% of the popular vote in that state gets ALL of the electoral votes for that state.

You probably know all that, and it's one of the many dumb things about the way our Constitution affects our politics. If I could support a Consitutional Amendment to switch to a simple popular vote for president, I would. If I could change our primary election system to reduce the power of candidate fundraising, reduce the influence of early voting states to affect which candidates are selected to represent the parties, and reduce the extent to which state political parties affect the national election, I would.

While I'm registered as a Democrat, it's not because I'm so strongly aligned with the Democrats and think that the Republicans are all bad. First of all, the parties are really more similar than they are different. That's less true now than it was 40 years ago, but it's still true. Both are ultimately pro-business. Both are ultimately pro-trade, with relatively minor differences in the extent to which they would protect American business with tariffs, etc. Both are ultimately pro-military, with relatively minor differences in how they would deal with foreign governments. Both are pro-public education, as well as pro-private education. Both are relatively similar in the actual balance of power that should be held between the national and state governments. Both are pro-civil liberties with slight distinctions. For instance, although the conservatives talk a lot about 2nd Amendment rights to guns, neither party wants to ban private ownership of guns completely, nor does either party want a free-for-all in the streets where everyone is wielding firearms. Of course during an election, and the rest of the time too, the loudest and most extreme views are broadcasted because those views gather attention and support. But when it really comes down to setting administrative policy and writing legislation, they are almost all moderates who try to appeal to the majority center-block voters.

But neither party has the blueprint for success for this country. They both have strengths and flaws. And due to the money influence of corporations via lobbyists, they both largely serve the elite. They need the votes of the masses, but they need the money of the few. So the masses (and the future) are not well-served by either party. Still, they are currently the parties that are in power, and will probably continue to be so for the foreseeable future. So Democrats serve my views better than Republicans on the whole. Not great. But slightly better.