[frankiep]

sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I have heard this mantra repeated over and over. I never gave much thought to it, but it's becoming plainly obvious that it is futile. Voting for the lesser of two evils will only ensure that you get what you ask for: evil. (NO, I'm not saying that Republicans are 'evil', I am only using the word to go fit with this tired cliche.) If cliches are going to be thrown around, then maybe it would best to throw out another one. You know, the one about the frog and the boiling water? Because thats exactly what voting for the lesser of two evils leads to.

Here's a novel idea. Instead of voting based on fear, how about voting based on who you think will do the best job?

[Texasforever]

Here's a novel idea. Instead of voting based on fear, how about voting based on who you think will do the best job?

Great. Who?

[KurtZ]

Here's a novel idea. Instead of voting based on fear, how about voting based on who you think will do the best job?

I couldn't agree with you more. However, I don't think Hillary will do the best job. And yes I will vote on fear. I fear communism and losing the war on terror. Therefore, I will vote any way I have to in order to defeat them.

[Conservative Goddess]

"Instead of voting based on fear..."

That's the difference in a nutshell. We won't cast a ballot based on fear. We dare to hold the Republicans accountable. I've also heard it described as the difference between the longterm view of the party vs. short term. Fear forces you to look only at the short term. Moreover, fear is a very powerful tool of manipulation. And when someone tries to use fearmongering on me, it only makes me more resolute.

The principled among us want to improve the party and we are willing to work toward a longterm goal, realizing that we may have to make distasteful, but necessary short term sacrifices.