(hey look, somebody defended Hillary by attacking Trump...weird!)
No it's not. There are several other options, at least two of them are much more anit-war than Hillary. If you are anti-war, and you vote for Hillary, you're an asshole. (unless you're only anti-war when it's a Pubby in charge, then you're a super asshole) Were there anti-war Dems in the Primary? If yes, why didn't they win the nomination...if no, what the hell is wrong with your party?
Either Trump or Clinton is going to win the election. We know this with 100% certainty. There are not other options, at least not in the realm of reality. If you want to treat a vote as a moral act that makes you complicit with everything done by the candidate of your choice, past, present and future, then go ahead. I'll continue to treat my vote as it is: a supremely flawed tool that I can use to facilitate the best of a constrained set of possible outcomes.
Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.
But lesser of two evils is still bad, because the consequence is always evil.
You say the crazy scenario that if all the Clinton > Trump voters vote for another option but all the Trump > Clinton voters vote for Trump, Trump will win, but what about the not any crazier scenario where a vast majority of voters from either camp vote for their actual favorite, regardless of party affiliation? The consequence of that is a functioning representative republic, freed from the two-party system of evil vs. evil.
"Lesser of two evils" is a saying. Just because you say it doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton is evil. I hate seeing this trotted out all over the damn place.
