How true is this statement; "If someone is not fit for office, it doesn't matter that someone else may be even worse"?

Who decides what "fit for office" means. Those polarized for either Trump or Hillary would argue that the other is not fit for office. However, in our electoral system no where does it say that someone needs to be fit for office. Its a made up term by the folks trying to convince you that their opponent isn't fit.

The sad part of this whole process, is that prior elections put both Trump and Hillary where they are today. Voters have to make a final decision based on what we have. If folks got involved in the process from the beginning and were more thoughtful about their choices, maybe we could avoid this in the future.

But I am not holding my breath....

But I am ardent believer in voting. People who opt out of the process because they dislike the choices are taking a cowards way out and help no one. Plus, you cant bitch if you didn't participate.

Completely untrue, in fact, just the opposite. The other options are of utmost importance.
"Not fit" is different than "not qualified". Although not specified, I think it's safe to assume that both are qualified, meaning that they meet the constitutional requirements. Therefore, "not fit", is a judgement call. So, just like in other life decisions, sometimes you need to choose the best of the bad options. Often, selecting the best of the bad options, can make a significant difference in your life. Choosing correctly when all your options are bad can be the most important decisions of your life.

Point made... Think about the Elections in the last 24 years...

You are correct. If someone is not fit for office, it doesn't matter that someone else may be even worse. Trump very well may be the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler... that does not mean I am going to vote for Hillary. It also doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Trump just to keep Hillary out. If I am not going to vote for someone, there is going to be a legitimate reason for me to not support them. In the same manner, if I am going to support someone, there is going to be a legitimate reason for me to support them and not just to keep someone else out.

For example... I will not support Hillary. Ignore Benghazi. Ignore the scandals. Ignore her husband's past. I will not support Hillary because she mishandled classified information and got off scot-free where others were crucified publicly for lesser mishandlings. It honestly doesn't even matter what was actually in the information she mishandled. It could have been anything from the President's dietary habits, VIPs itineraries, names and backgrounds of personnel security details. Anything that could have been used against this Country. That's why I can't give her a free pass because even out of the military I still have to go through the same hoops to keep and maintain my security clearance.

I'm on the fence with Trump. I see why people like him, but if I vote for him, it won't be simply to stop Hillary. For me, the most appealing thing about Trump is that both the Republican and Democratic parties have been trying to destroy him. By all appearances, he looks like he can't be bought by the establishment government powers or the standard special interests.

The biggest thing to remember is that people laughed at the idea of a Hollywood actor sitting in the Oval Office and many people revere Ronald Reagan. Trump may be unrefined, but he very well might be what we need in the Office. Who knows, only time will tell.