Sabotage is a very specific word with a very specific meaning. I absolutely believe Sanders lost focus during the primary and over relied on negativity and smears against Clinton, but I do not believe he ever attempted to "sabotage" or actively harm her chances in the GE in any way. I have not argued this. I have not seen this argued on GAF. If it has been, please cite the post(s). Otherwise this will be yet another thing you've said I'll be tossing in the "disregard" garbage bin.
What's the term for people refusing to vote for the vastly better candidate in an election where those two are the only viable options?
For your first point, one of them is going to be president. I'm not fully happy with Hillary but you've already admitted she's the better candidate. You can stick your fingers in your ears and be an idealist bystander if you like but that doesn't bring about any actual change.
Hey, that car on campus four years ago that still had a Kucinich 2004 sticker on it wasn't giving up hope yet!
Not just Germany, it's happening all over Yurop and U.S. politicos seem to be oblivious to it. The Swedish Democrats, The Finns, Greet Wilders' party polling at top of the Dutch polls for most of the last two years while Labour gets wiped out and the mainstream center-right VVD gets knocked for a loop. A lot of those voters weren't people who came from other parties necessarily, they were brought into the system by something opposed by like all the parties. Even some other parties have had their cordon sanitaire dropped that stood for 20 years.
There's only one viable option in the end, everyone else loses no matter what share they get.
Voting can be added to that list.
I just meant there's only two candidates with a shot of winning i.e. viable candidates.
But is there really? I figure there's only one. And has been since November 2012.
It's not likely but it is certainly possible. I'd rather not be complacent.
But that's just some kind of superstitious ritual. Trump winning is more likely than you and I combined having any measurable say in the outcome.
So far you have posted a video refuting the very thing you're claiming and you've refused to elaborate on other comments you've made. I am not glossing anything you've said over, fart town. On the contrary I've been asking you repeatedly to show your work and to expand on vague and/or inaccurate remarks. Fact checking isn't pretentiousness.
Why are you letting him get to decide?
That's his problem though. The fact that Bill Kristol and Henry Kissinger are still people within "accepted norms." And that Hillary should be expected to act within these "accepted norms."
I'd rather move beyond this point. The next time you want to criticize GAF for being dismissive remember the thread in which your reply to someone asking you to explain yourself boiled down to, "I did in the past, do a search for it!"
I don't know how or why you would make that assumption about any individual. Presidential elections get infinitely more attention than everything else combined. Just look at the number of threads here compared to 2014. Someone who despises current foreign policy wouldn't be posting in a ten post thread about the Senate race in Kentucky or something, especially if they don't live in Kentucky.
I wouldn't be so hasty. Bill Kristol is a idiotic monster. I wouldn't immediately dismiss an argument that he's worse than Trump.
I agree with what you're saying, she is the nominee. She has to win. But the primary was way too long, Bernie dragged it out for often petty reasons, and I think it did more damage than usual because it took him FOREVER to drop out. It left lingering issues with supporters unwilling to back Clinton due to the bitter nature of the primary, that once again went on for far too long.
Hillary possibly losing because Bernie didn't "lose the nice way" narrative again? Bernie killed his own campaign by being vague on how he would approach getting any of his policies pushed. It doesn't matter as Hillary laid out a more concise and coherent plan.
