Do you have any evidence of such? If you don't then I require no evidence to deny your claims.
Evidence of what?
You conceded the candidates are not eminently qualified nor popular, yet those types of candidates are presented year in and year out.
You deny the existence of power brokering?
You keep asking for proof of things you acknowledge.
WTH is the matter with you?
No, I simply acknowledge that the candidates that were presented this year in the general election, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, were not to my liking. Some years an individual may like the candidate(s), some years they may not, this year I liked neither, but most people apparently did. A sample size of 1, me, is not at all indicative of the popularity of the presidential candidates. Furthermore, the two candidates this year were qualified, with Hillary Clinton having extensive government experience and Donald Trump being a good organizer of business, a skill that can be projected to politics. I never once said that every year the candidates aren't popular or qualified, take for example Ronald Reagan. Extremely popular, extremely qualified. In the 2012 election, I didn't per se
like Barack Obama as a candidate, I preferred Mitt Romney, but I felt that in that election I would be fine with the results either way. You again say that I agree that the candidates are unqualified and unpopular (A viewpoint I don't have, for many reasons, chief among them being that they were ELECTED). Again, do you have evidence of this power brokering? Give me evidence of such and I'll consider it, until I have cited sources and such I won't take any of your statements as truth. Please don't twist my words, if you interpret my words a certain way make a quote that displays that.