They have to earn our vote. Neither Hillary [Clinton] or Donald [Trump] have earned our votes, yet the media is kind of closing ranks around them to try to prevent before people find out that there is actually - you know, that we actually have other choices. We are not limited to two corporate candidates.

[I like] Victor Jara and the music of Chile, and the social movement in Chile.

We have missiles - nuclear missiles - on hair-trigger alert. We should be in the business of nuclear disarmament right now, which neither of these candidates [Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton] are talking about.

The policies that Hillary [Clinton] advocates are going to be more of the same, whether you're looking at her cozy relationships with the banks, her refusal to support Glass-Steagall, her vagueness about what actually she's going to do about the control of the big banks.

And then you're going to have a president whose business empire depends on sort of delivering certain policies. For example, one thing that was quoted in the Newsweek report - that his [Donald Trump] pushing policies of nuclear arms for South Korea would actually improve his business network.

The states have the authority to change this voting system for president, right now, in fact, if they wanted, on an emergency basis, they could adopt a ranked-choice system, which simply allows you to go to the poll, and rather than rolling your dice and deciding whether to vote your values or your fears, you get to rank your choices, knowing that if your first choice loses your vote is automatically assigned to your second choice. It's kind of a no-brainer system. It works very well.

While we've doubled renewable energy, it was only a tiny portion of the energy portfolio to start with. But what we did was totally take the lid off fossil fuel extractions in every way imaginable. On the day following [Barack] Obama's trip to the Louisiana floods, you know, we had, I think, another 25 million acres that went on sale in the Gulf for further extraction.