So what's the point of winning, if evil is good enough?
As in "lesser of two evils". Both are still evil.
This article inspired this thread:
https://newrepublic.com/article/148337/new-york-politically-toxic-place-america
Until Monday night, Eric Schneiderman was regarded as a model progressive in the #MeToo era—a powerful Democrat who, as New York’s attorney general, sued Harvey Weinstein for civil and human rights violations over the movie mogul’s alleged abuse of women. But Schneiderman’s reputation and career have collapsed after The New Yorker revealed that he, too, allegedly abused women.
Four women, including two longtime partners, told the magazine that Schneiderman slapped, spat on, or punched them. He also used his political authority to intimidate them. When one of them tried to ward off his attack, he said, “You know, hitting an officer of the law is a felony.” Schneiderman’s political position served as a shield in another way: It made the women reluctant to report his actions for fear of hurting his political career. When one former girlfriend talked to friends about the abuse she suffered, according to reporters Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow, “A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose.”
Some friends, right? "Sorry you got slapped around, but he's really good for the party, so.. Please grin and bear it? #Meetoo!"
So,.how exactly is having a guy like this in charge, a win?
I mean, call me naive, but I see politics are an extension of morality. You support gun rights, so that leads to you supporting Republicans. If a Republican did not support gun rights, and this was important to you, you drop your support.
If you support victims of domestic abuse, you support whoever's behind that. If they are serial abusers behind closed doors, WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU SUPPORTING.