I must be really stupid because I just can’t grasp the arguments some pretty smart conservatives are making to justify either voting for Hillary Clinton or not voting at all.
Let’s stipulate that these probably are the two worst candidates for president in history, and also that neither is officially a nominee, yet.
But if it happens, why would a conservative not do whatever is necessary to stop Hillary from winning?
One argument is that “the lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Well, yes. But that also means that the alternative is more evil.
Since one is going to win, wouldn’t the prudent move be to vote for the lesser evil and thus try to prevent the more evil from winning?
Aside from Clinton's meanness, total lack of honesty and far, far left philosophy, there is one argument that seals the deal for me, as far as choosing one of these two.
There is 100 percent chance that Clinton would nominate an ultra-liberal justice or justices for the Supreme Court.
Trump is a wild man but it appears that there is less than a 100 percent chance that he would do so.
Another unconvincing argument is that Trump’s candidacy will somehow cause the GOP to lose a majority In the Senate.
If that is going to happen it is already a done deal. His winning won’t change a vote that already has taken place. But he could still nominate a conservative justice and get it through a Democratic Senate. Democrats constantly make the argument that a president is entitled to have his nominee approved, and I don’t think they would dare leave a seat open for four years if Trump stuck to his guns.
The process is deeply flawed as shown by the fact that we have these two presumptive nominees. But that is no reason to drop out of voting.
Every vote cast for Trump negates one cast for Clinton.
The old saying is true: If you don’t vote, they will.