Another crybaby attack poodle in my wake...
Why can't you just answer the question? Your choices are:
a) Yes, both are bad, both will be bad for the nation - but I'm going to vote for one of them anyway because he's less bad than another one. That's right, I'll vote for a bad candidate on purpose.
b). No. My candidate isn't perfect, but he'll be a net positive for the country so I'm voting for him.
Now, you seem to be more interested in trolling than honest discussion, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your answer is b - that you don't really think you're voting for a bad candidate, and you wouldn't vote for him if you did think he was bad. That's fine. I disagree, but that's rational.
But, when you're trying to sell lo2e, you're talking to people, like me, who think both candidates
are bad, that both will be a net negative for the country. You're asking us to do something you wouldn't. You're asking us to vote for a bad candidate on purpose.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your answer actually is "a" - you really do think both candidates are bad, and will both be bad for the country, but you're going to vote for one of them anyway. In that case, my benefit of the doubt was unwarranted and you really are the irrational tool you play on message boards.
