It's striking to me how both Hillary and Trump sound the most reasonable and logical when criticizing the other. Both sides are generally correct and both sides' reasonable and non-hackish supporters know it. The only thing left to argue about becomes which exactly is the lesser of two evils? I've stated before I'm not going to vote that way. Lesser of two evils is B.S. voting. Either a candidate earns my vote or he doesn't. Trump hasn't earned my vote. Neither has Hillary. That means neither gets my vote, and if that means the greater of two evils gets picked, it's nothing less than the country deserves for giving us such crap to begin with. There IS a viable 3rd option I'd like to point out. Gary Johnson of the Libertarians is running. Right now he's at 8% and he needs 15 to get a spot in the debates. I don't know much about him but my understanding is he's socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I need to know a hell of a lot more but on the surface he seems like a candidate both sides can make principal sacrifices for in order to come together and shed this lesser of two evils mindset. I would love to see him hit 15 if only to give him a real chance to earn my vote. The never trumpers and never hillarys---come together and get it done.
Every election is the lesser of two evils. Nobody is perfect and nobody's without skeletons in one's closet and nobody's views match the views of a particular voter to a tee. This election is different though, it's between the status quo and a complete change of direction on a bunch of domestic and international issues. There isn't necessarily right or wrong answer, some people have reasons to support the status quo or fear the unknown, others have had enough and are willing to take a chance on something drastically different. Your mileage may vary but by all means feel free to waste your vote on some nobody like Johnson and his extreme, radical, absurd and utopian libertarian gibberish.
Wrong. The lesser of two evils is not defined as the lack of perfect candidates. It is defined as two candidates who would be, overall, harmful to this country. You do not need perfect candidates to be beneficial to this country therefore lack of such does not necessarily create a lesser of two evils circumstance like you are suggesting. And please, don't talk of wasting a vote. I'm a conservative in Washington State. My vote goes to the Democrat whether I vote for them or not. Welcome to the electoral college buddy! It's good to know that about johnson though. Perhaps you are correct in that analysis. I haven't heard him speak but once and would like to learn more both from him and others about him. Perhaps I won't be voting for anyone whatsoever.
That's the point, what is and isn't beneficial to the country is in the eye of the beholder. Half the population support free trade, the other half don't, half support isolationism, others more assertive foreign policy, half support abortions, the other half don't, half support open borders, the other half don't. These "the lesser of two evils" claims surface absolutely every single election cycle and they are totally meaningless..... This election is different, status quo vs new direction, the old Democratic party vs the totally new Republican party, business as usual vs reinvention..... There are risks involved, pros and cons, but the lesser of two evils is not a factor. PS Could not agree with you more on the electoral college though, the vote of 90% of the american people just does not matter.
Before we can measure the results in statistically measurable categories, yes, lesser of two evils is in the eye of the beholder of course. Trumps negatives are huge. Hillary's negatives are huge. The people voting lesser of two evils owns the majority vote and how they vote will dictate the election. I think it's worth them taking a harder look at the principle of voting lesser of two evils and seriously consider any alternatives out there.
Gary Johnson has repeatedly run for president. Once in awhile he manages to land an interview on TV. I have seen him interviewed. He may not be as nuts as Trump is, but he doesn't seem to be in possession of all of his marbles either. I would find him frightening as a president, just as I would find Trump frightening. I think you should check him out a bit more before deciding to vote for him. You implied that not voting for the lesser of two evils in tantamount to voting for the greater of two evils, and you added, "the country deserves [it] for giving us such crap to begin with." It wasn't an abstract "country" that gave us these two choices; it was the human beings that voted in the primaries who did this. Human beings put us in this mess, and now it's up to human beings to make the best of the mess they created by voting for the lesser of two (actually four in most states) evils. Well, to be fair, I know nothing about the green candidate, so I should have written "the lest of three evils."
A vote that doesn't help or hurt cannot be defined as a vote that hurts imo and I didn't mean to sound like it did. A neutral vote is simply that. And "country" and "people" I meant to be synonomous terms as I don't see a meaningful distinction needing for specificity in this case. True though, being specific doesn't hurt. And yeah I don't even know who the green candidate is, though I don't think I share much in common with them whatsoever.
Yes, a vote between entrenched establishment and a guy with a big mouth. We already know the establishment runs on back room shady deals. At least with Trump we'll know what's happening in DC. Probably the most transparent administration ever. Trump isn't shy about his thoughts and the media will willfully report on every syllable muttered. When congress gets shady he would probably make it headline news. I'm voting for something different. DC's idea of transparency is more like a black hole.
