Debate on choosing the lesser of two evils?

I think that's how a lot of people vote this day and age.

I don't think people go out with the purpose of "lesser of two evils" but choose the best of available options.

I find it hard to understand, especially knowing the person is a liar. People can still give them their trust.
Would you allow your children to depend on that? He or she is a liar you can trust them.

If it's a case of a liar vs. a liar and rapist, I'd pick the non-rapist. Nothing to do with trust. Ideally a good candidate will rise to the binary choice but that doesn't always happen. So they pick the best available. It's an easy concept. Reduction of harm.

@AverageSue : No, you don't it's like bad produce do you trust and eat around the bad portion. You throw it away.
If you voted for the liar, you're essentially saying it's acceptable and you agree.

@tntrecycling :
No, you don't....
If you are STARVING, you eat the best of the two options. Not a hard concept for most. You have a choice: forced a totally rotten, maggot filled apple, or something that just expired the day before. Surely you get that. ...maybe not.

@AverageSue : Knowing that you can become sick you try to eat. Concrescences?

A liar, a theft, a rapist, a killer
Which one do you hand the key? They all claim to be able to do the Job.

@tntrecycling : Is this your guest list for dinner?

@PeoriaIllinoisan :
Or setting up a joke! I totally get not liking either. But there is definitely a very good argument for reduction of harm. Only TNT doesn't get it.

I've never voted for someone I didn't like. If neither candidate is acceptable, I don't vote on that item. Really though, it's a window into how you look at life. Some people (wink wink) think everyone is evil at the core. I don't. Some vote for the best of the worst. Some vote for the best. Semantics to some, but I think the distinction is important.