I am not a purist, but I have about 4-5 core political principles and any candidate I support must be on the right side of those issues. It's really that simple. Sending a Republican to Washington because it's supposedly going to block (or even slow) implementation of a radical leftist agenda might sound great on paper, but when that same Republican is an ardent advocate of a full-scale foreign invasion across our southern border then I wouldn't walk across the street to vote for the guy.
I am not a purist, but I have about 4-5 core political principles and any candidate I support must be on the right side of those issues. It's really that simple. Sending a Republican to Washington because it's supposedly going to block (or even slow) implementation of a radical leftist agenda might sound great on paper, but when that same Republican is an ardent advocate of a full-scale foreign invasion across our southern border then I wouldn't walk across the street to vote for the guy.
Well a few thoughts: I never called you a purists. That's a widely misused term. Second, your absurd description of the RINO position as a "full scale invasion" is just not true. If you think it is, you're making yourself more miserable than you need to, or you're just blowing off steam, or you don't fully realize the difference in the two parties on this, even for those Republicans who are too far left on this issue. But I'm sure you felt self righteous in typing it.
I would also say on a practical level, that having someone who violated all five of your core principles is going to f-K your life up a lot more than someone who violates maybe 2. Too many Freepers think "lesser of two evils" is always a bad thing. When that cliche was developed, it was a good thing - to be wise enough to distinguish the lesser of two evils when given a not so great choice.
I mean, if evil is bad - then MORE EVIL is by definition WORSE than less evil. It's not the same, it's not better, it's WORSE. PERIOD.