Sure, the consequences are dire, but it seems to me that the chances for a real election are no more than wishful thinking. That's why it is somewhat amusing that people take something that is very likely a fraud so seriously.

This was my thinking in 2016 (on top of the fact that I live in a strong blue state).  But I have decided that I will do what I can do and leave the rest in God's Hands.

LOL

Fear is one of the devils greatest weapons.. the evil "deep state", the WEF, the globalists......we need a savior!!! Trump save us!

"Only I can help"
Our Lady of Fatima

I'm not in a state of fear.  Not sure where you got that from my post.  I know God is ultimately the one in control here.

And the reason they're all over the map, as it were ... is because not a single one has actually explained or thought through the principles involved.  Instead, they're throwing out terms like "lesser evil," which are NOT valid principles of Catholic moral theology, without any nuance, distinction, nor explanation ... to the point that it's going to do damage far beyond the realm of voting, where in other scenarios Catholics will believe that one can make decisions based on the (utilitarian) consideration of doing the least damage and the most good, without considering for a second that it's all about the liceity of the means, and not simply a calculus about the final outcome.  If someone wanted to explain why this is licit for reasons that do not contradict or violate Catholic principles, then I'm all ears ... but nothing of the sort has been forthcoming.  Now, "double effect" is a licit Catholic principle, but no one (to my knowledge) has even attempted an application of double effect, but instead, merely double down on the liceity of "lesser evil", which is false, dangerous, and harmful.

This really isn't that complicated, and is very basic.  Now, the Trad Catholics who promote lesser evil will sometimes (not always) put the term in quotes or air quotes (when speaking), realizing on one level that it is simply NOT a valid principle, but then applying it anyway without making any distinctions in terms of why suddenly it's OK when it's simply wrong.

Now, I surmise this is happening because the controllers, especially in America, have succeeded in persuading Catholics to somehow "compartmentalize" voting as if it were some kind of special animal where the normal rules don't apply.  It's why you had so much Americanism, with US Catholic bishops insisting on separation of Church and State to be legitimate ideals (while then going and offering Mass on the Feast of Christ the King), or where JFK ran on the promise that his personal "Catholic" views had nothing to do with his political positions, platform, and policy.  Somehow US Catholics believed that voting and politics were compartmentalized from their Catholic identities and operated on different principles and laws, rather than understanding that all human actions involve the same consideration of principles to determine their morality and liceity.

On a retreat I once heard that we as humans will not commit an evil act as evil but we must first perceive/turn it in our mind as a good before we commit it.  We first rationalize it as something good.  In our present political situation the Church would never permit Catholics to vote for a pro-sodomy, pro-Israel slaughtering Palestinians, Greater Israel project, Warp Speed vaccines, pro- abortion (IVF, or health of the mother loopholes).  It has been turned into a good because he is perceived to be less evil than Kamala.

Might you be projecting your fear on to us?  I have no fear.  Mary is with those who pray her Rosary.

I am pretty sure none uf us think Trump will save us.  Why do you keep implying that?

+Vigano endorses Trump, he tells Catholics "abstaining is allying with the enemy."   

So Trump is not the enemy of Catholicism?  Pro LGBtqrst?  Pro-Israel genocide?  Pro-abortion? 
Isn't +Vigano grouping Catholics with the enemy and therefore an enemy, for not endorsing Trump? 
Isn't this a bullying tactic?

One argument for voting for the less bad option is that one of the candidates will be elected anyway, so you might try to elect the one who will do the less damage.

So, that's what is known as the "utilitarian" approach, a kind of mathematical calculus of the end result.  Problem is that for Catholics HOW you achieve the result is critical, since the end does not justify the means and you cannot do an evil even to prevent a greater evil.

So, for instance, let's say you have a situation where the life of the mother is in danger and if you don't remove the infant, they will both die.  So the two possible outcomes are 1) both die, and 2) the unborn child dies only.  So the utilitarian calculus has the better outcome or the least bad outcome being #2, where only the unborn child dies.  But, see, according to Catholic principles, this calculus regarding the end results still does not justify you going to get an abortion, for the doctor to proceed to vacuum out the unborn baby, rip him to shreds, use chemicals to kill him, or whatever.  Catholic hospitals had very specific procedures they had to follow in such situations.  You had take care not to DIRECTLY KILL the unborn child, since that would be doing an evil ... to prevent the greater evil, and it would be an evil means to the end.  So the procedure entailed removing the infant, with the removal both saving the mother and causing the unborn child to die indirectly.

So the same thing applies here.  Catholics cannot make moral decisions simply based on a calculus of the end result.  It has to be determined whether it's licit to vote for Trump ... in an of itself, without any reference to how much WORSE the "other candidate" might be.  It wouldn't matter if Trump were running against the Antichrist.

Now, to determine whether it's licit to vote for Trump, one can apply double effect, where a vote for Trump has some good effects, and some bad ones ... and (among other criteria) there has to be a proportionality where the good (clearly) outweights the evil.  It it's licit to vote for Trump based on that analysis, then one may vote for Trump.  But if a vote for Trump fails the test of double effect, then one cannot vote for Trump regardless of how evil the alternative might be.

So, one could argue that my vote has the double effect, the good of keeping hαɾɾιs out of office and the bad of whatever evils Trump will do, but that doesn't pass for double effect it actually violates one of the tests, namely, that the evil effect (in this case the election of Trump) cannot be the cause of the good effect (keeping hαɾɾιs out of office), but in this case, electing Trump is clearly the cause of keeping hαɾɾιs from being elected, and so failing this test means that it's really an end justifies the means scenario in disguise and not actually double effect.

So, that's what is known as the "utilitarian" approach, a kind of mathematical calculus of the end result.  Problem is that for Catholics HOW you achieve the result is critical, since the end does not justify the means and you cannot do an evil even to prevent a greater evil.

So, for instance, let's say you have a situation where the life of the mother is in danger and if you don't remove the infant, they will both die.  So the two possible outcomes are 1) both die, and 2) the unborn child dies only.  So the utilitarian calculus has the better outcome or the least bad outcome being #2, where only the unborn child dies.  But, see, according to Catholic principles, this calculus regarding the end results still does not justify you going to get an abortion, for the doctor to proceed to vacuum out the unborn baby, rip him to shreds, use chemicals to kill him, or whatever.  Catholic hospitals had very specific procedures they had to follow in such situations.  You had take care not to DIRECTLY KILL the unborn child, since that would be doing an evil ... to prevent the greater evil, and it would be an evil means to the end.  So the procedure entailed removing the infant, with the removal both saving the mother and causing the unborn child to die indirectly.

So the same thing applies here.  Catholics cannot make moral decisions simply based on a calculus of the end result.  It has to be determined whether it's licit to vote for Trump ... in an of itself, without any reference to how much WORSE the "other candidate" might be.  It wouldn't matter if Trump were running against the Antichrist.

Now, to determine whether it's licit to vote for Trump, one can apply double effect, where a vote for Trump has some good effects, and some bad ones ... and (among other criteria) there has to be a proportionality where the good (clearly) outweights the evil.  It it's licit to vote for Trump based on that analysis, then one may vote for Trump.  But if a vote for Trump fails the test of double effect, then one cannot vote for Trump regardless of how evil the alternative might be.

So, one could argue that my vote has the double effect, the good of keeping hαɾɾιs out of office and the bad of whatever evils Trump will do, but that doesn't pass for double effect it actually violates one of the tests, namely, that the evil effect (in this case the election of Trump) cannot be the cause of the good effect (keeping hαɾɾιs out of office), but in this case, electing Trump is clearly the cause of keeping hαɾɾιs from being elected, and so failing this test means that it's really an end justifies the means scenario in disguise and not actually double effect.

Sure. This is clear enough, but what about the moralists? Are they all wrong?

In other words, Catholics and Evangelicals (possibly 80 MN votes right there, enough to win a presidential election) should vote for Trump en masse now, and then, once in office, push him to be more pro-life out of loyalty to us.

Sorry. This is a pipe dream. Trump won on being the most pro LGBT republican in history and introduced "project warpspeed". 

To think he is any kind of saviour of the American people or moral leader is nonsensical. To think he will listen to Christians against his political prospects is even moreso.