That degree number is "180" :)
I hardly think I am the only one who simply will NOT vote for either of those three stooges. Period.
If the waiter minces up to my table, affects a smarmy sneer, and informs me that, "On the menu today is feces of the oink-oink, bow-wow, moo-moo, or, from the other menu, the hiss-hiss or snap-snap," I'll look the bastard in the eye and say, "No, I don't think I'll be ordering today."
In other words, if a hobson's choice is forced on me, I will not participate in the charade of having a "choice" in the matter.
And as I said above, I hardly think I'm the only one -- and any amount of personal attacks, accusations, and other typical "eat their own" tactics will only serve to steel my resolve. You don't win votes by badgering people (a lesson "our side" never seems to learn).
You win votes by giving the people someone worth voting for.
Thompson seems promising. We shall see what happens.
Will the "G"OP primogeneture kingpins try to sabotage him, so as to ensure that one of The Royal Three gets the nod?
Quite likely. We are "The Stupid Party", after all. Let's see if we can finally shake off that tag. I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful. (And before anyone tells me that's a contradictory statement, read it again.)
Don, you strike a chord with me today in your post. I, too, have been wondering about how far one can compromise in good conscience. It seems to me that, while no one wants a Hillarbeast in the White House, there is a theorectical point beyond which you cannot go and still maintain your good conscience....like voting for a liberal just because they have a (R).
It is one thing to vote for such a person without the knowledge that he/she is a liberal; quite another thing is to vote for in spite of knowing it.