I agree that this is a tiresome debate that has been going on for far too long (decades). Now, I'm going to throw in my two cents to add to the debate (why not; everybody else is doing it?!)

The first POTUS general election I could vote in was 1988. I contend that, then and since then, there have been no "good" candidates to vote for, just "less bad" candidates. This, in my opinion, includes all 3rd party candidates. However, I do believe that many excellent choices got discarded along the way in Primary elections. All we're ever left with are the "Giant Douche & Turd Sandwich" D & R candidates, along with the Syrup of Ipecac (vomit inducing) 3rd party candidates. In the end, the American people have a choice of the "least bad" candidate.

"Least bad". Which candidate is less likely to do further harm to our Republic?

I agree that the Dems & GOP have consistently put forth horrible candidates for us to choose from and I haven't seen one 3rd party candidate worth my consideration. The GOP, in particular, loves to choose shitty candidates. Why are these the candidates we get to choose from? Because of politic favors and which candidate can be best controlled by their party. It's as simple as that. Is it what's best for our Republic? Hell no! It hasn't been in my lifetime and it's only getting worse - which is why this nation is crumbling.

Whether the candidate is Dem, GOP, or 3rd party, I encourage you to vote your conscience. But I remind you that, when another candidate wins the election and you get to deal with their policies, YOU played a role in that happening and have zero room to complain about the circumstances of their administration.

Elections, as they say, have consequences. I can choose to be an optimist or a realist when I make my choice at the poll. This is what drives me to consistently choose the candidate who I believe has the greatest chance of winning and who will cause the Republic the least harm.