Completely and utterly wrong assumption about me on your part. Both parties suck. There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got.
Completely and utterly wrong assumption about me on your part. Both parties suck. There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got.
Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse.
In this case, it was not a guy but a woman running against Parsons.
(Wow, those are some downvotes! People reacted to this comment like a Missouri voter reacts to a female gubernatorial candidate.)
I'm sure we could compile a list of elected officials across a spectrum of political parties where no consequences are faced (for an action, in-action, decision, cover-up, etc) when they may be warranted. I don't think this is a valid argument.
Is it?
>There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got.
So, in a sense, by subscribing to a lesser of two evils idea, you're doing the same thing as "the other team is worse" (the thing I said).
It is what it is, negative partisanship does drive everything, and the first step to better politics is admitting we have a problem.