[Mr Ramsbotham]

Kind of along the lines of what you said, I would rather have a candidate WIN who I agree with half the time then to have a candidate LOSE who I agree with all of the time.

That's really funny, because all I've heard around this place for the past four years is how nobody will ever, ever again vote for the lesser of two evils.

[SamAdams76]

Well I think many of us are learning our lesson because we have been ending up with presidents that we agree with zero percent of the time.

[jjsheridan5]

That's really funny, because all I've heard around this place for the past four years is how nobody will ever, ever again vote for the lesser of two evils.

You are missing the point. The "lesser of two evils" refers to voting for a GOPe candidate rather than a Democrat candidate. Here, you are misapplying it to a candidate who not only is not GOPe, but is the most ardent and effective opponent of the GOPe. Voting for Trump over whoever is not voting for the lesser of two evils, simply because Trump is not GOPe. The "lesser of two evils" was never a test for ideological purity, as many claimed, but rather a test for a candidates' relationship with the uniparty.

[Lazamataz]

That's really funny, because all I've heard around this place for the past four years is how nobody will ever, ever again vote for the lesser of two evils.

Apples vs. Road Apples.

The GOPe is about 2% better than the Democrats. If Trump is 50% better, than is more than an order of magnitude, and that changes the character of the argument.