I am a life time democrat but I actually find Hiliary Clinton to be even worse than Donald Trump. I base that on what I perceive as the chances of either getting us into a large war.

The US has such a large military budget that it acts like a war magnet. If there isn't a war once a decade there could be talk of reducing spending which would be harmful to all those special interests funding campaigns. So, basically an anti-war candidate is unelectable because they wouldn't get big money behind them. There are always anti-war candidates at the start, but they never make it to the final two because you need the right funding mix to get there.

Hey that's how the voting system to elect a president is supposed to work. More than two "real" candidates ends up wasting votes. If we have two liberal and one conservative president and the a voting split like this: 1. liberal 25%, 2. liberal %35 and conservative 40%

The conservative will win even though 60% voted liberal. You don't have this problem if there are only two choices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

> only two people we deem worthy

You aren't the one deeming them worthy, the democrat and republican establishments are.

Or at least, Republican party members were given the choice between Donald Trump and "I'll work with martians" Ted Cruz.

As long as first past the post is the voting system of the US actual democracy is impossible.