CathInfo.com

Yes.  These compromises with morality over the years has led us to where we are today.  Thirty, forty years ago, Trump and his views would have been considered far left lunacy but today he is the "conservative" choice. 

Correct.  Compromises based on "lesser evil" are what have enabled the engine of the Hegelian dialectic to march forward.  If even just Catholics had not compromised, it would have thrown a huge wrench into the gears of the Hegelian machine.  But this tolerance for "lesser evil" leads inexoraby to (and basically is a statement of) moral relativism.  With each election cycle, they provide a LESS less evil candidate, so that the end result is that one can barely tell the difference, and we today find ourselves in the deplorable situation where even self-proclaimed Traditional Catholics are promoting the liceity of voting for someone like Trump (which would have been a horrible scandal a few decades ago), someone who believes in exceptions for abortion, who will fund abortive IVF, will veto federal legislation banning abortion, believes the states have the right to legislate away human life, who brags about being the most pro-sodomite President in history and has attempted to force other countries to repeal anti-sodomite legislation, and who promises to enable the Jews to "finish the job" of their genocide and the establishment of greater Israel, to "Make Israel Great Again" (his words).  But due to lesser evil, that's considered OK now even by Trads, and in fact some are arguing that there's a moral obligation to vote for this deviant.

We're just a few steps away from the following scenario:

Candidate A:  Pro Unrestricted Abortion, Pro Sodomite, Pro Illegal Immigration, Bad Economic Policies
Candidate B:  Pro Unrestricted Abortion, Pro Sodomite, Pro Illegal Immigration, Slightly Better Economic Policies

... to saying that a Catholic may vote for Candidate B above, since he's the "lesser evil" due to his better (or slightly less bad) economic policies.  That's where moral relativism takes you, and there's no principled backstop to prevent the "lesser evil" principle from leading to this exact conclusion, providing a very clear reductio ad absurdum invalidation of the "lesser evil" thinking.

Your perspective on voting for Trump raises some important points worth discussing. While Bishop Morrow’s catechism suggests that a Catholic should vote for the least hostile candidate when all options are problematic, we must remember that this does not justify supporting a candidate who endorses intrinsic evils, like abortion.

So, the standard I've seen is that one cannot support those who promote evils contrary to natural law.  Obviously we're not going to get candidates anytime soon who promote the Kingship of Christ and reject the separation of Church and State, and other errors contrary to Catholic teaching ... and one could look at various aspects of the US Constitution on those points as merely a tolerance, where the Church can tolerate a practical co-existence with false religions, for instance, but there's no toleration for evils against natural law.

There's no candidate, for instance, who believes that divorce should be outlawed and adultery punished ... but then even St. Thomas taught that it's OK to tolerate such evils in civl law (i.e. to not punish them, or to de-criminalize them) due to the practical problems with enforcing it.  So there's also a distinction to be made between tolerance of various evils and active promotion of them.