I'm not sure you believe the premise of your own retort, which is that all people must at all times be either 100% absolutely good or 100% absolutely evil, and that expressing a preference for one candidate over another is equivalent to absolute support for 100% of that candidate's positions and actions.

All I have to do to avoid your oh-so-clever and original knock-down checkmate demolition of a response is point out that it's possible to express a preference for A over B while finding neither to be ideal, and to endorse A while also wanting to influence A to change their position or behavior on certain things. And this is perfectly consistent, since my position is that silence and nonaction are complicity, and what I advocate here is speaking up and acting. I can even head off the inevitable further send-me-fleeing-from-the-room-while-an-eagle-sheds-a-tear-etc. complete killer retort of "well why aren't you busy denouncing Hillary Clinton with your every breath then" by pointing out that I can in fact prioritize issues and say "I acknowledge this thing was bad, and want to return to it, but there is another thing currently happening that I consider worse and am prioritizing at the moment".

(like most people who try to fight on this, you're a bit formulaic; would you like to at least try raising something original?)

>I'm not sure you really believe that, here's an experiment to find out: did your feelings about Hillary change at all as a result of the Weinstein thing? Do you feel complicit in all Weinstein's deeds? Or substitute any of the many Hillary-supporters caught up in scandals now.

I've been feeling particularly smug, after all these corruption and graft scandals, to be on my #BernieWouldHaveWon train.

> I've been feeling particularly smug, after all these corruption and graft scandals, to be on my #BernieWouldHaveWon train.

Oh, cool, do you have some actual evidence about the alleged HRC corruption and graft scandals that you can share?

Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about it. Money meant for down-ballot races was being funneled to the HRC campaign, and both HRC and Obama had left the DNC in heavy debt. From the stories, it sounds like the Party didn't like Obama much more back in 2008 than they liked Bernie in 2016, and as a result, they basically rejected Obama's attempts to reconcile and merge his electioneering efforts back into the Party. This basically fucked them over completely on down-ballot races.

The Democratic Party sounds like a terrific lesson in the Iron Law of Institutions, and right now, much of the American Left (that is, actual left, social-democratic and leftward) is behaving the same way, too.

> Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about it.

Her claims that the DNC rigged the primaries were quickly shot down as bullshit and she walked them back the very next day.

Maybe so, but nonetheless, it shows how the DNC has traditionally been a device for funneling money from ostensible members of the Democratic Party, to whichever presidential campaign is on at the time. If you ever wondered why the Democrats lost so many down-ballot seats, the basic answer is: because they sent all their money to Hillary, Obama, and then Hillary, including the money meant for the down-ballot races. Pay nothing, play not at all, lose by default.

>>> Donna Brazile wrote a whole book about [HRC corruption] >> Her claims were bullshit and she walked them back. > Maybe so, but nonetheless, it shows [...]

No, look, you can't say "this proves it", have that proved to be bullshit, and just go "maybe so but" and carry on with your disproven argument!

Why would they? Weinstein supported Hillary, not the other way round.