On the other hand, I love politics - not because I necessarily have an opinion in them, but because elections get me paid.
More accurately, I'm working the upcoming Australian Federal Election, as a representative of the AEC, the government body that makes sure no one cheats like all hell, and will work as a 2IC (Second in Charge) at a polling booth.
I have a very formal position of neutrality in politics, and it's just my job to make sure that a vote counts. I have no position to who you vote for, but your vote should count, and the process is fair. In fact my position demands that, since I have to make sure I remain impartial to the Australian election process (and we get into real trouble if we influence a person's vote)
Flowing from that position, I'd like to put a thought for you in regards to US politics -
Given that Donald Trump is a (from a benign observation) a very self centered narcissistic (hard to argue otherwise given he names everything after himself) billionaire, and that Hilary Clinton is currently up on several charges (FBI are after her, from my understanding), and has at least one set of fraud allegations leveled against her (The Clinton Foundation stuff) there's a question I'd ask to the US citizens.
If they're the best choices you have and are the ones offered, I'd argue that the fact the country says these guys are the best to offer says that you've got a lot more problems than the simple fact that either of the two are the front runners.
Or more accurately, 'Where are all the sane candidates? Is this really what the US believes are the good options?'
In the double dissolution election here, we don't have anyone that fits either description here (of either kind) across most of the political spectrum, so you can probably see why I'd ask that particular question.
Of course, coming from me (Who's got another blog entry where you'll scratch your head and go 'So whose rulebook does your life work out of?') that might make you laugh a bit.