There's a huge difference between a candidate that doesn't align perfectly with one's ideals and candidates diametrically opposed to one's ideals. You will NEVER find someone that aligns perfectly with your ideals except yourself.
If ALL candidates on the ballot are diametrically opposed to your ideals, the best solution is to write in the name of the candidate that DOES align at least mostly with your ideals, the second best idea is to simply not vote. Casting your vote for someone you think will be disastrous in order to deny someone you think will be apocalyptic is a terrible way to vote, IMO. I understand it, but I disagree with it.

If we order pizza, and the choices are limited to 4 types of mushroom pizza, or pizza with mushroom, onion, and sausage, and you are deathly allergic to mushroom, sitting in the corner and pouting and refusing to eat, while complaining to the room that they inappropriately completely excluded you from the process is the right choice.
Yes, it would be better to become more involved at the 'choose the toppings' level, but not everyone has that ability, and doing so is no guarantee of success.

If neither nominated candidate offers even some of what you want, what then?
I don't advocate not voting at all, but voting for the slightly lesser of two evils is not the only choice, supporting candidates that don't have a chance of winning THIS TIME can set up the next election so they do have a chance...it's a long game, but still better than 'boycott', and better than voting for certain disaster, even if that disaster is inevitable.
The notion that YOUR candidate is the only right choice and everyone else is being manipulated just might be reality in this instance, and not naïve in the least. Voting for someone just a step below apocalyptic seems naïve to me. If you think that the candidate is the only right choice BECAUSE that candidate is your choice, and not because they exhibit the qualities and positions you think are absolutely necessary, unlike all other candidates, then I agree, that's immature and naïve, but I don't think many made their decision that way.

Yeah...no.

We can't only vote for candidates that align perfectly with our ideals. We can support those candidates but if they don't make it to the general election then you vote for the candidate that most closely matches your values. I cannot even conceive of the level of self entitlement I would need to feel to endorse the idea that only my first pick is deserving of my vote.

We can order one pizza. I want sausage but I do not like onions. Everyone else wants onions. I sit in the corner and pout and refuse to eat.

The only mature position is to encourage people to do more to actively support their preferred candidate. That is positive action. To advocate boycotting elections when you don't get your way is untenable...because everyone CAN'T get their way. You have to accept that your views will not always be in the majority. You have to be prepared to get some of what you want if you can't get everything.

This notion that YOUR candidate is the only right choice and everyone else is being manipulated....its just immature and naive.

Cop apologist. As if being stupid is some justification for being beaten down like this. People are considered stupid for a reason. Doesn't mean they deserve this abhorrent type treatment from those who are suppose to serve and protect and be better then that. Shes an idiot and he deserves the most extreme vigilante justice for being a cunt of the worst kind. *angry*

We get all, you should have known better(sanctimonious) when its someone you don't know but if this was your child, there is no way you would be telling your kid, your disfigured crushed face is justice for your immature behavior.

-edit-
At what age is it appropriate to hit your/a child for disobeying or rebelling in some way against you as an elder, adult or parent.

I agree, but i have something else that it smells like too. Like when i was a kid and i'd be out with friends, unsupervised, not yet responsible, and let's say someone swings off a tree and the branch snaps off. He goes oh that shows how strong i am, so before long another kid starts trying to rip a branch off, people are mocking each other, challenging each other's strength. Before you know it, you're in a group with a load of kids like wild animals trying to destroy a tree on someone's lawn, branches and leaves everywhere, dirt and mud and the tree uprooting. I made that example up, but many people have been in that kind of situation as a kid. Mine was absentmindedly throwing mud at a wall because it made an interesting splat. I zoned in half an hour later from my daydream and realised i'd ruined someone's wall and covered their driveway in mud. I did clear it up.

What this smells of to me, is that they were after someone, getting excited and feeling the thrill, suddenly one turns to his mate and goes "dude! do you think we can use those new explosives...?", another one chips in "even better, we've got that APC!", and they all hoot and howl with excitement, grab all of their exciting new toys and go in like the charge of the light brigade. Take out those fences so we can surround them! We need that wall down! Maybe that one! By this time they've forgotten that they're trying to protect people's property and safety, but they're having the time of their lives.

That's what it smells of to me - out of control immaturity and gang/yob mentality. And they're armed with army equipment now. When things like this start to happen, you really have to start questioning how things are being run. How else could it have happened that they gut out a house like that?

I use that as a euphemism for unprofessional or immature and extremely casual or unconcerned with society and civility and lacking consideration or respect for your elders or everyone in general.

It's very often used in place of a handshake, and in my boys' case, it's exclusively attempted to be used that way.

Well the cameraman DOES look/act like an immature douche bag and really could have been driving like an asshole... but maybe I just want to believe.

Care to explain where you think he's wrong?
What he said as I heard it is what I've always been told by christians...god, Jesus, and the holy ghost are the same thing...and so god sent himself to earth to torture himself for the sins of humanity that he himself created (both humanity and the sin).
Exactly what part of that is wrong? (not glib, flippant, or immature, just a straight question)

This is childish and immature

The problem is that Sarkeesian is a moderately bright person making moderately reasoned arguments about a tiny niche phenomenon... and most everybody opposing her, including in this thread, are ridiculous fucking whiners with appallingly dumb arguments about a tiny niche problem... So there's really no other conclusion than "games are dumb", "gamers are dumb", and the internet makes these things exponentially worse. I like gaming but recognize it for the horribly stunted and immature medium it is, just like I love big dumb superhero comics and recognize them for the horribly stunted, immature art form they represent.

Neither Sarkeesian nor her detractors are really willing to accept Colbert's best point in this video - that ethics in gaming journalism is a ridiculous issue, because gaming journalism is ridiculous and gaming is ridiculous. You don't see readers of actual literature go around trying to form a self-defensive subculture, or whine that some review site "offends its target audience," because literature, movies, and music (as media) don't have to serve as some insecure little group's protection blanket from the world.

Watching a video and thinking(passing judgement) if someone is in someones league is just immature when it comes to relationships(imo). People that think like that, or worst, actually say it out loud, i have to assume, have no clue about what being in a healthy relationship looks like. Of course my opinion and judgement on a comment like that is based exclusively on my life experiences thus far.

Says who? What authority do you have to define what is and what is not gay? Your essentially saying that gays can only be gay in respect to whom they are attracted to. Anything else which deviates from mainstream heterosexual norms is "immature" and the mark of an "asshole". In other words you're only willing to tolerate difference so long as it's in a way that's acceptable to you. Who is the asshole again?

Again, the flamboyant character is caricature and much of his behavior is not work approrpriate. But it's entirely possible for a gay man to be effeminate and still be professional. According to you and this video however, once a gay man crosses the line into effeminancy, and starts to be different in a way that's harder to understand, then he deserves what's coming. I have a problem with that.

...and yet none of the signature qualities of Key's character are actually gay.

There's nothing gay about his haircut, his shirt, his lisp or his asshole-selfie. The only thing gay about him is his sexual attraction to men. The rest is just his personality.

I wouldn't tolerate an immature, inconsiderate, unprofessional straight asshole, so why should I have to tolerate one who's gay?

Humans are just too damn immature to be allowed to have any of their toys. Idiots.

As a person who's had so many Sunburns in my lifetime, I've lost count.
From childhood up to immature adulthood.
Does that mean I'm immune to Cancer??

I struggled with The Office, mainly because I've worked for people very much like David Brent and couldn't see the funny side. But I've just started watching his latest series Derek and it's completely changed my view of him. It's amazingly well written. He manages to get The most immature dick jokes in there, racist or obscene jokes, physical comedy, clowning, subtle puns and wordplay but all in a plot that is one of the most touching and heartfelt I've seen for a long time, comedy or not.

Great british comedy, like Only Fools and Horses, or Open All Hours, are all about compassion and love. They're funny, but the characters are so well written you really care for them. The writers of Only Fools and Horses managed to write an episode about one of the main characters having a miscarriage. There were jokes throughout the hospital scenes but somehow they didn't stop it being truly tragic, they didn't trivialise it. It was devastating, but funny at the same time.

I'm not sure Derek is quite that level, but it's getting there. It's made me laugh and cry, sometimes at the same time. He's undoubtedly a very clever man and going up in my estimations all the time