re: #287 sattv4u2

they might have one of their “pure” candidates

I never understood the rationale on either side when they don’t get ‘their” “pure candidate” in the primary, then sit out the general election to punish “them” for not picking their person

So they
A.) don’t get the candidate they want
then
B.) don’t vote for the person that might align with them at least on 50% of the issues
resulting in
C.) having someone that they agree with on less than 25% of things getting elected

People like that don’t think as you and I do, Sat. For them protecting their purity is the most important thing and compromise is treated as a species of treason. I think part of it is also that they don’t really want even miniscule responsibility for moving things in the right direction, because then they’d have to actually own that responsibility for legislation and would face blame what things subsequently went wrong (as they always do). they think it better to sit on the sidelines and crap.