You can vote for anyone you want to, for any reasons you want to, but I won’t sacirfice my principals, just to elect a republican, that will eventually stomp all over my principals.
Ah, the usual dodge.
Can you see how one might conclude that the reason you think you “don’t need to name names” is precisely because naming names will demonstrate that handing power to the Rat party would be worse for the country than handing power to the Republican party?
Your vote ought to count in the general election. In my view, it would be wise to use your vote in such a way as to secure so far as possible, among the *viable* alternatives, whichever leadership set is better for the country.
So long as you decline to publicly go through the analytical process of reviewing exactly what the respective administrations probably would look like, you:
(1) cannot hope to convince anyone of the rightness of your position, and
(2) actually add to the impression that those who are willing to engage in a politically futile act (casting a vote for someone they know cannot win) are simply petulantly insisting that they must “feel good” about the person for whom they vote, rather than that they consider at all the net impact of their vote on the country.
Unfortunately, your course of action would, in fact, be the greatest sacrifice of your “principles” of all. Sure, you’d “feel good” about the protest candidate for whom you voted, but your failure to vote to stop the greater of two evils being visited upon the country would directly facilitate that greater evil.
And if you would like to argue that, no, the Rat candidate winning would not be a “greater” evil, then why don’t you name some names and show me? I’m listening.
Once again, the point of this thread is proven in spades. Thank you.