Replies

"Sometimes you’ve just got to choose the lesser of two evils"

Nice to know there are people out there that WOULD choose evil and brag about it. /s.

In this case, it's the lesser of 3 liberals. (And we'd still have a liberal, no matter what).

“In this case, it’s the lesser of 3 liberals. (And we’d still have a liberal, no matter what).”

I could never bring myself to vote for a lib. I still have to find out about my options. If I write in for POTUS, do I still get to go to the polls to vote for any Conservative running as well? Must I “flick” that lever for all or can I leave one “unflicked”?

This is the 1st time I have ever been put in this situation so I really have absolutely no idea how to do any of it!!

"Sometimes you’ve just got to choose the lesser of two evils"

Nice to know there are people out there that WOULD choose evil and brag about it. /s.

English is not a literal language. The idiom in question means "an unpleasant option, but not as bad as the other".

War is certainly unpleasant and, in World War II, choosing to fight a war rather than surrender to Nazi tyranny was certainly "choosing the lesser of two evils".

In the Real World nothing is Perfectly Good except some characters in children's Fairy Tales.

To mock someone with the literal text of "choosing the lesser of two evils" is not clever. It is merely childish.

Right now, the choice is a right of center moderate candidate with some liberal tendencies who desperately wants to win a war that America cannot afford to lose without devastating strategic consequences versus a far left candidate that has promised to surrender in that war which, by all historical benchmarks, has already been won except for the always unpleasant job of "mopping up".

America's future safety will depend on whether or not the registered voters who act like adults next November will outnumber the registered voters who act like children who demand a Fairy Tale character next November.

**********

Obama 14 months ago:

Obama wants troops home by spring ’08 ……. Illinois senator, presidential candidate introduces bill to force redeployment

**********

McCain 15 months ago:

Published December 27, 2006 ..... Novak: McCain's 'aggressive surge' stance backfiring ........ conservative columnist Robert Novak suggests that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "aggressive" push for a U.S. troop expansion -- or "surge" -- in Iraq may be costing the top 2008 GOP contender in the polls, especially when matched against another presumed front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). "The decline in the polls of [McCain], as measured against [Clinton], reflects more than declining Republican popularity ......... "It connotes public disenchantment with McCain's aggressive advocacy of a 'surge' of up to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq

"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right, what I believe is right and what my experience and knowledge and background tells me is the right thing to do in order to save this situation in Iraq ... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose." - Sen. John McCain's reaction to the Iraq Study Group Report, 2006

**********

Four months ago in Iraq:

Troop Surge, Iraqis’ Anger Puts al Qaeda ‘On the Run’

**********

It’s not a black and white issue. There are degrees of pain that we’re going to have to incurr. McCain would probably be a little less painful.