key terms:

Defense in depth: multiple layers of anti-tank guns interwoven with mines, trenches, infantry, and artillery already registered and aimed at killing zones in front of the obstacles. No single hard crust; rather, more like the layers of an armored onion; as you peel one layer, the next one pops up.

"Pak belt": the reference term for anti-tank guns.

Commissar: the political officer who will shoot any man who retreats from their defense of the motherland.

"Shoulders": the sides of the place in the line pierced by the first plunge of the blitzkrieg that have to held by the defense in order to slow it and give the counterattack a wide open flank to punch into.

Reliability: new German tank models were rushed into battle at Kursk at Hitler's direct insistence before they had been debugged. The battle started 6 days after the last just-barely-not-a-prototype Panther had been delivered to the front. The battle began with 184 Panthers on the rolls; by day two, there were 40 operational; by day 5, there were 10 total...

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/

Ironically, the decision to delay the battle by two months, giving the Soviets time to build up all of their defenses (digging trenches and anti-tank obstacles takes time)--was made to make it possible for the Panther to get to the front..

I'd be totally down with that, except that I would ask to hold the onions on mine. There is only one acceptable form of onion to me and that is deep fried onion rings (further proof that anything can be made edible with deep frying).

Fucking onions maaaan!

The Onion Looks Back At 'Die Hard'

Who is chopping onions?!

*onions

Traditional Australian light lunch of grilled sausages (beef), usually on a single folded piece of bread with tomato sauce and fried onion topping it. Also known as a "sausage sizzle".

Your video, The Onion Reviews 'Ghostbusters (2016)', has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Every now and then I forget how great the Onion is and then someone sends me an article or video.

Double-checking it's not The Onion.

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.