"...There's an important election ahead with two distinctly different ideologies facing off against each other..."
Okay, I don't think anyone on this board would disagree with this statement, by itself.
Here's the rub: I don't think it's the two ideologies you're thinking of. I believe it's two others.
Group One: A group who's "ideology" really hates Hillary, the GOPe, the establishment and all it represents. They fear what Hillary will do and what the GOPe will do if in office and left alone. They are furious about being betrayed by their own party (GOPe) and scared spitless about what Hillary will do if she gains the office. They SAY they believe the Constitution is the defining, baseline rulebook for our country. They believe that contract has been broken. This group is actually a sub-set.
The other ideology, Group Two, really hates Hillary, the GOPe, the establishment and all it represents, too. BUT, it also hates anti-freedom, tyranny, big government, "progressive" causes/mentalities that encroach on freedoms and people who tend to vilify anyone that disagrees with them. They are constitutional conservatives that see the American Contract being broken. They believe the Constitution is the defining, baseline rulebook for our country. They believe that contract has been broken.
Group one has seemed to coalesce around Trump. Trump SAYS he's going to be mean to the establishment. Trump SAYS he's going to fix stuff. Trump SAYS he's going to build a wall, ban muslims, etc. And Group one (rightly, in my mind) thinks that would be terrific. But, Group one also ignores warning signs about Trump. Or if they don't ignore the signs, they just won't allow discussion about them. They tend to vilify and disparage anyone with negative or critical comments about their guy. They are trapped into a binary thought process; either/or.
Group Group two sees Trump as a possible antidote...but one that may have too many side effects to be worth the risk. They don't disagree that much of what he SAYS he'll do would work and they would dig it if someone actually did it. But, because of history and an understanding of the way government works and an understanding of the Constitution , they realize two BIG things:
1. For a lot of what Trump promise to get accomplished to get accomplished, he would have to operate extra-Constitutionally, or Congress would have to cooperate in a fashion that it's NEVER cooperated before, or;
2. Trump ain't gonna get it done at all and is just saying what he needs to say to get people to sign on.
Either way, Group two isn't having any of it. They don't want their name on this person's legacy. They feel like there is ALWAYS another way; a better way.
But even if it is binary, they'll not sacrifice their principles because of a threat. They'll not roll over again, because "our" candidate is [seemingly] closer to our convictions than another.
It's not hard to understand. It's easy if you try.
And taking this principled approach is more honorable...and admittedly, more fraught with danger and risk than the easier, go-with-the-flow option.
It's just an abhorrent choice for us.
We just choose to continue to hunt for alternatives to what we see as two bad choices. And if the "lesser of two evils" is one of the choices, we'd really rather not vote for evil at all.
There's enough around without us putting our imprimatur on it.
