I'm not sure you believe the premise of your own retort, which is that all people must at all times be either 100% absolutely good or 100% absolutely evil, and

I'm not sure you believe the premise of your own retort, which is that all people must at all times be either 100% absolutely good or 100% absolutely evil, and that expressing a preference for one candidate over another is equivalent to absolute support for 100% of that candidate's positions and actions. All I have to do to avoid your oh-so-clever and original knock-down checkmate demolition of a response is point out that it's possible to express a preference for A over B while finding neither to be ideal, and to endorse A while also wanting to influence A to change their position or behavior on certain things. And this is perfectly consistent, since my position is that silence and nonaction are complicity, and what I advocate here is speaking up and acting. I can even head off the inevitable further send-me-fleeing-from-the-room-while-an-eagle-sheds-a-tear-etc. complete killer retort of "well why aren't you busy denouncing Hillary Clinton with your every breath then" by pointing out that I can in fact prioritize issues and say "I acknowledge this thing was bad, and want to return to it, but there is another thing currently happening that I consider worse and am prioritizing at the moment". (like most people who try to fight on this, you're a bit formulaic; would you like to at least try raising something original?)