> Determining which one is more evil is a pointless exercise.
No, it really isn't. I used to think the way you did, but:
* Maybe isn't the best candidate.
* Pretty much a Republican.
* Made some shady, but not illegal, deals to get her campaign financed.
* Has a first-instinct to cover everything up, even the innocuous things.
* Openly stokes racist and xenophobic fervor to the point that the secret service is having to protect the press.
* Is currently being (credibly) accused of raping a child, and the only reason that criminal charges have not been filed is because the statute of limitations elapsed.
* Has openly bragged about how it's "smart" that he doesn't pay taxes.
* Has openly lied on several occasions
* Has the support of the American Nazi Party and the KKK.
* Has put out an anti-semitic final ad right before election day
* Fails to pay out his contractors on his many businesses, putting people out of work
* Has made horrible business decisions
* Has bragged about sexually assaulting women. ... and the big one
* Has threatened to withdraw from the international agreements which has kept the world from falling into the hands of Russian conquest for 60+ goddamn years, while *increasing* the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
And that above list doesn't include all the shit he's done that I can't remember right now.
Do I want Clinton as my next President? Hell no. But we are now in game theory mode: One of two options is bad, the other is worse, and one of them *will* come to pass. So yeah, "Determining which one is more evil" is about as point-ful as it gets.