From the start of this election season, I have remained fairly neutral. I tried to see the candidates for what they believed and stood for, regardless of their party affiliation.

At first I was intrigued by Ben Carson--he was an incredibly intelligent and accomplished man who seemed to be far more focused on competency than on political catchphrases that would win him favor. Donald Trump also had my interest early on because of his willingness to speak his mind regardless of political correctness. He was brash and insulting, but at least he was honest.

Trump quickly lost ground with me with the fashion that he insulted Megyn Kelly with after an early Republican debate. I realized that he had a low level of maturity and a general disrepect toward women. I checked him off my list of possibilities early. His racist comments against Hispanics, his mocking of a disabled reporter, and his extremist stance against Muslims all solidified my opinion of him. The video of the girls dancing and singing before a Trump rally, eerily similar to the opening scene of The Interview, was the last straw. Such extreme nationalism, at the expense of disregard for other world citizens, never ends well--US president or otherwise.

For a similar reason, Ben Carson lost me early on. Clearly, Trump claiming Christianity is just for the sake of winning the evangelical vote (see: Trump reveals his favorite book). Carson seemed more genuine about his faith. But in an early Republican debate, Carson stated that we should bomb "anything resembling a military vehicle" in ISIS-occupied lands. Such tactics in use are why hospitals have gotten bombed, why funerals have gotten bombed...reckless warfare and the killing of innocents anywhere cannot be justified. Carson was consistent with his un-Christian rhetoric when he said that he "stood with the 31 US governors" in calling for a ban of Syrian immigrants coming into the States (remember when Jesus said "whatever you do for the least of these, you do unto me"?). He later endorsed Trump. Ben Carson is not who I initially believed him to be.

I followed the Democratic debates and race somewhat less closely; Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley seemed to agree on a lot of points, and it seemed somewhat clear that Clinton was bound to receive the nomination. Admittedly, I could've been much more diligent in keeping track of this side of the race, but to be fair the Republican campaign got much more coverage early on, if for no other reason than that it was wildly more entertaining.

When the Republican field was narrowed down to Rubio, Cruz, and Trump, none stood out to me. Most of the Republicans, if not all, lost me with their militaristic mindsets: phrases like "we'll make the sand glow" and "they should be blown off the map" were thrown around flippantly and received applause. Destruction of ISIS, by any and all means necessary, seemed to be a singular point of agreement for those in the Republican field. I agree that we need to fight and beat ISIS; killing everything near their bases is simplistic and ignorant, rash and even murderous. This can not be the answer.

Ted Cruz won back some respect in my book when he lost the nomination race, but refused to back Trump. Most of the Republicans who took part in a Stop Trump movement during the race, flip-flopped immediately when they realized his nomination was inevitable. At least Cruz had the spine - even more impressive as it was on the huge stage at the RNC - to stick with his stance, at least at that time, to not endorse Trump. Even Paul Ryan can't say as much. He waited until Trump showed his true colors a couple of times before backing down from an endorsement. By the way, was anyone really surprised by the most recent video of Trump's inappropriate behavior? Paul Ryan should've known better--we should know better than to expect Trump to fit into some box we've made to hold "our presidential candidate". Trump is who he is; it's who he's been, let's not act like he's going to be a changed man now that he's making a run at politics.

As the race stands now, it is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I decided long ago not to vote for Donald Trump, for conscience's sake as much as for anything else. There's little that is political about it. For some time I thought, especially when Trump was closer and even leading in the polls, that I would not be opposed to voting for Hillary Clinton if it meant stopping him. Yes, she has much different stances on abortion, amongst other issues, than I do. But I don't think she'll take way religious freedom (yes, that extends to Muslims too), or make an enemy of half the world with careless rhetoric. However, that she's better than Trump is not a good enough argument. "He/she isn't nearly as bad as her/him" has been used as justification far too many times in this race. In my mind, Trump (maybe) appointing conservative Supreme Court justices is not enough reason to vote for him either. Justices are supposed to abandon political affiliation when they get to the Supreme Court anyway. Their job is to interpret the law and administer justice, not tow one party line or the other.

Lately, the media bias toward Clinton has been ridiculous. Celebrities everywhere are endorsing her. There's nothing wrong with this, as everyone is entitled to voice his or her opinion as part of free speech. It's unfortunate however that "average" citizens can be swayed by such "lofty" opinions (note the sarcasm here). It's another story entirely when the New York Times and Time Magazine, probably the nation's most influential newspaper and magazine, respectively, openly endorse a candidate. Both have done so in Clinton's favor. This steps past the boundary into undemocratic propaganda. Some level of impartiality and bipartisan fairness should be maintained at such a high level of journalism. The lack of these turn me off to considering Clinton, a prospect I was somewhat wary of already.

I've been told that who I vote for, I'm somewhat responsible for, should that person win and "screw everything up". This is somewhat fair, even though checks and balances are in place to avoid an overextension of the president's power. But the idea does make some sense and I'm not sure I want to be held responsible for Clinton's actions (being responsible for Trump's is out of the question). Conservatives, and avid Bernie Sanders supporters, are adamant about Clinton being a vessel for rampant corruption. I haven't seen explicit evidence of this, other than the email scandal--which, fairly, is significant in itself. But maybe they're right; I wouldn't put it past her to be power-hungry, manipulative, or to work for personal motives...I just can't say for sure.

I've also been told that it's time to support a third party candidate. In this way, we as citizens can make it clear that we're unsatisfied with the candidates of the two major parties. I would consider this option as well, if the people had stood up for a third-party candidate. In my estimation, neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein were strong enough to make a serious run anyway, but we as a nation couldn't even get them onto the debate stage. I do think many are dissatisfied with the two options, but too many of these got caught up in the lie that it had to be Republican or Democrat, the lesser of two evils. Now, and not earlier, this has become our choice. At least in this current election, third parties are a moot point. Perhaps in the next election enough people will stand up and allow a third-party candidate to have a chance. This election, it hasn't happened and it's too late for it to happen now.

I am thankful that our country allows its people to have a say in electing its leader. How much say that actually is - when money, connections, and family ties play such big roles, when the system is often complex to the point of unintelligibility - is up for interpretation. But we have a say nonetheless. Maybe it's more so with public outcry and the stands we take publicly (nonviolently, of course) rather than checking a box on a ballot

I intend to vote for every position on the ballot, but am strongly considering leaving the presidential box blank. I have no dog in this fight. I've followed this presidential race fairly closely, and have simply been desensitized to it all. I'm not in the least confident that either candidate will make a good leader for the United States in the next four years. I don't know how much of a difference my vote will make, how much my voice will be heard. Perhaps refusing to accept either of the options presented to me is the clearest message I can send in November.

More chances to vote for the president will come; with my first chance to do so, it seems that it may be best to remain voiceless, letting the silence speak for itself.