So, you are in favor of "my guy or the Nazi" voting? I didn't hear a "no", there.
It isn't "loser talk" to recognize the rules that elections run by, or to push back against the "both sides" rhetoric that lets the Overton window drift ever rightward.
Either you show up and vote in every election for the least bad candidate, be they good or great or only "not as bad", or you are doing more harm than good.
What does that fight look like, in your mind? Standing and shouting for Bernie and then sitting out the general when Clinton wins? Or arguing for Bernie in the primary since he's the best choice and then arguing just as hard for Clinton in the general since she's the best choice then?
Primary-only voting doesn't force anyone to do anything but ignore us harder in the primary.
And if that isn't what you mean by your objection to framing all elections as choices for "least bad", then why are you echoing the rhetoric of those who do?
I don't know how you square the circle of asserting that 'both sided are bad' is what got us here and still echoing "less bad" to buttress their thesis
Waiting for the left to be "good" instead of "less bad" is what makes "both sides are bad" such an effective demobilization tactic.
Picture the clearest example in human history, where one side was absolute villains and the other a superman-esque obvious good guy.
Then explain to me how the good guy is not the "least bad" choice.
Because too many of us who had selfish political actions, and for decades kept saying "both sides are bad" while the side nearest facism kept acting in bad faith.
Democratic elections have always in the end been about picking the least-bad option. And, like it or not, elections and their consequences shape the rest of the world.
"President barely passes budget despite his party holding both chambers of Congress" isn't a major anything.
It is a despicable continuation of the November 2024 disaster, but this isn't anything worse than what anyone with any wisdom at all saw coming seven months ago.
(It is less-bad than it could have been, in the way that food soaked in piss is less-bad than food smeared with feces. Small victories, though...)
1: what the frick are you doing in Excel that needs even 10^2 columns? Rows go up to 2^20 (~10^6), and the thing starts to run like ass way before that.
2: Excel does have a RXCX format, if you really do need to go out hundreds of columns.)
3: feel free to ignore. Bitching about being forced to use the wrong tool is definitely more stress than anyone needs.
If you think that's bad, look at what "1" means.
(And, honestly, at least windows' "last big calendar change" and excel's "start of the century when we wrote it" are reasonable points. The unix "let's make it recent so we can fit an absurdly small unit as an integer!" Epoch is just... Weird.)
"this job requires specialized training we're not willing to provide" is the same management failure as "the wages offered for this job are not sufficient to attract workers."
Raise the latter, and give the former with a reduced wage for a set number of years.
If you're dealing with relationship advice, the differences from one person to another are substantially greater than those which separate men and women. Even if we ignore transgender and same-gender relationships, or how a huge portion of western society's gender differences are just toxic sexism.
"How can I (M) suggest $FETISH to partner (F)" is essentially the same question if you swap the genders, make them both F, or make them both M. And to the extent that they aren't, many of the answers and clarifying questions will be.
That's a hell of a lot of words that aren't either "of course we should vote in every election for the best possible candidate" or "no, we should withhold our votes in the general if the Dems don't nominate someone sufficiently progressive."
If you mean the latter, say it. If you don't, then say that, too.