So on the flip side, if voting is not a moral issue; there would be no moral issue with voting in a Hillary or a Hitler. There must be some level we say enough is enough. How do we decide where that is?
Correct. Then enters prudential judgement where the better / worse options must be be weighed.
Consider eating pie. It is not a matter that needs moral judgement. My belief is that God allows me to eat anything that is is edible.
I probably should, however grapple with some better or worse aspects using prudential judgment..
What kind of pie? How much pie? If I eat all the pie how does that action affect others who deserve some of that pie? How much will my pie eating affect my health?
With Trump / Clinton, what I have done is to think of the post January 20 reality and what is a reasonable expectation. It takes little time to conclude with high confidence that Clinton is Obama's third term. I call that, in my mind "a known known" and consider it unacceptable.
So, I must judge the realistic options I have for preventing it.
As of today, Trump is that realistic option. I reject the "pick your poison" assertion. And I can live with some "known unknowns."
As to those who thinks that his moral failings and his undisciplined tongue, disqualify him, I won't attempt to dissuade them. I posted my essay to share MY experience.