I'm not looking for an argument, I'm trying to make a point. You don't agree with them 100%, but in the primary process you are picking "the lesser evil". Should none of those three win (none of those three are going to win), then your choice is the person left standing and Clinton or the big O or Sanders or whomever, and you have to choose between them just like in the primary.
Not bash the person who's better than the other.
When they run for President they try to put on a front. A picture of their life they want you to see in order to get your vote.
If you look at this picture without hearing or seeing the parts of their life they do not want you to see you are voting blindly.
Is pointing out the things you do not like about them bashing them?
Don't you want the truth instead of the rosy picture they paint in their ads?
Certainly if the candidates I like do not win a primary I will have to pick someone else.
Some say that is the lesser of two evils.
Some say that it is picking the one closest to my views.
Does it really matter what you call it?
It is what voters must do. It's either that or stay home or vote for someone without a snowballs chance in hell of winning, thereby giving the election to some female who has lied ,cheated,has dubious sexual inclinations and should not be in the White house, but in some jail in Ft. Leonardwood.
It's not a position I want to be in, but one we all must face. The Republican party leadership must not be allowed to pick our candidate, and we must ignore the first primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa, where they have picked our losers far too often.
?}
