The choice is ALWAYS to vote for someone who is the lesser of two evils.
And what’s wrong with that?
Isn’t it a moral imperative to do what one is able to do to STOP a greater evil?
Yes.
Does it demonstrate “integrity” to sit passively and allow someone who is “more crappy” than someone else to win an election when one could have voted for the “less crappy” person?
No.
If your ox falls in a ditch on the Sabbath, you have two “crappy” choices-—let your ox die (and possibly impoverish your family) or break the Law. Are you arguing you above making such a choice?
She is still flip-flopping on the issue last time I noticed.
On this issue, and an important one to me, Hillary wins. Albeit, narrowly.
Reminds me of the Dems “win at all costs” in ‘98.
They stuck with Slick Willie in ‘98 because they were more concerned about winning than doing what was right.
They lost all integrity and they knew it. “Oral sex isn’t sex?” “Depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” LOL.
This issue is more than just about “my ox.” The issue is bigger than that.
Great leaders in our history risked their “oxes” and fought for what was right. This is what made this country great.