There is compromise, meaning giving up part of what you want to make something palatable to others, which is good IMO, and there is compromise meaning giving up your stated principles, which is terrible IMO, and there is compromised meaning you are damaged or open to attacks. The latter 2 are why I can't vote for Clinton.
The implication that Sanders doesn't compromise by the first definition is plain wrong, but the implication that he doesn't compromise or isn't compromised in the 2nd and 3rd definition is correct, and why we needed him as the nominee so badly.

Yes, we clearly disagree about independent voters' responsibilities. That's fine. Just know that when you assign blame, many won't accept it.

Yes, I also hope current poll numbers and trends reverse....unless Sanders IS the nominee, in which case I hope current poll numbers remain the same.

What? What argument? Instead of answering? I discussed your two suggestions, and offered two of my own, one being (I think) a more palatable alternative to your tax proposal for steadying markets, the other being campaign reform. To quote myself...
"Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests. A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between."
Is that an argument? It certainly wasn't meant as one.
It was meant as simple and fairly civil (if slightly snarky) answers to your question (answers that I guess you missed), with a note that IMO, my (and likely your) preferred planks are not going to be addressed acceptably by Clinton, and clear reasons why I think that. That was not meant to start an argument, I'm sorry you take it that way.

Only if you're willing to accept extreme hypothetical situations. ;-)

There are some who MUST eat meat. I admit they are few and far between, but they exist.
For the average person, no, there's no reason they MUST eat meat, but it's incredibly difficult to completely replace with normally available vegetables, impossible for many for either economic or availability reasons.

As a palate cleanser from this thread...you might like this animal friendly product....
http://videosift.com/video/SaltWater-Edible-Six-Pack-Rings

Great point at the end by Cranston: "Maybe it's time for a viable 3rd party."

I doubt there has ever been a more golden opportunity for a 3rd party to rise up than right now. Certainly not in living memory.

Half of registered republicans think that Trump is some sort of folk hero in the making. Nearly everybody else thinks that he would be a disaster of near-Biblical proportions. He might get a decent amount of votes from that crowd by people who "just want to watch the world burn", but still. Meanwhile, nearly everybody (including democrats) thinks that Hillary is a sleazy, status-quo politician. Her "supporters" think that she has the best chance of preventing President Trump -- apparently they don't trust polls that show Bernie Sanders being a much more palatable option for everyone, specifically in the sense that he'd easily beat Trump whereas Clinton vs Trump is neck and neck.

Basically, anyone who runs for a third party in this election stands a fantastic chance of doing better than one or both of the presumptive nominees from the two major parties. Jesse Ventura would get a LOT of serious attention in this election. Any other election, probably not so much -- but right now...

These Hillary people now just ignore all her hypocritical flip flopping, never ending pandering, and bribes from billionaires and corporations and claim she's the 'better candidate'....Delusional morons ignoring fraud, bribes, a complete lack of consistency ("I supported $15 an hour...My plan is to raise minimum wages to $12 an hour...I support $15 an hour"), illegal fundraising collusion with the DNC, and a likely indictment on multiple counts right before the election (improper or not), and add to that the second worst 'likeability' rating ever to the list of things that must be ignored to make her palatable and a total lack of support among independents, and yet they're still assuming that people that support an honest candidate will just support her...that's just plain retarded...we won't.
Clinton as the nominee means Trump as president.

EDIT: If Bernie can really get Warren to run as his VP, he might still take the win outright. I really wish they had gotten together and hashed that out long ago, we could be working on the general election by now.
I also really wish they would both run as independents, not beholding to either party, since neither major party represents the people anymore.

I would actually say that's what makes a personally successful politician, but not a professionally successful one, and as far from a perfect one as it's possible to be.
I think we need both election reform and finance reform to make a difference. Election reform to be able to actually hold politicians accountable to their voters at least once every few years, and finance reform to make them want to work for the voters rather than the donors.

A perfect politician would be fair minded, not greedy, not ego driven, not 'tribal', honest, willing to sacrifice for the greater good, thoughtful, consistent but willing to change in the face of new information, moral (not the kind of morality where you force your specific morals on others, but the kind of morality where you can be a role model for them), and still influential and successful at not only finding solutions to problems that are at least palatable to all, but also successful at getting them implemented. I'm not sure I've ever seen one of those...but as I see it, Sanders checks more boxes than most, far more than any other candidate.

Young Grandpa Munster is kind of weird. Still more palatable than orange Kanye.
I don't wanna ask who the baby daddy either.
No More Boritons!

WTF?!? "Tangible plan"? What on earth could you possibly mean by that?
The "plan" to round up over 11 million people and deport them, but with zero details about it?
The "plan" to make Mexico pay to build a 2500 mile wall, with zero details about how?
The "plan" to illegally deny fugitives entry to states because, you know, Muslims are bad...MmmmK?
The "plan" to skew the tax system even more in favor of those in the top 5%, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes?
His "plan" to be a smarmy, dickish, douchebag to anyone that isn't in his camp...but also to completely control those people to make them do exactly what he wants...again with zero details how he plans to do so?
The "plan" to force China to...I don't know...ignore all our debt and treat us like the boss we are?

As for Clinton's being 'currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department.'...the "email scandal" has, just like Benghazi, turned up absolutely zero illegal behavior and is nothing more than a red herring designed by the (absolutely not) "conservative" side of our political system, has gone absolutely no where, and only matters to people who would NEVER have voted for her in the first place...if you think differently, you really need to get out of the Fox bubble and look around at reality for a bit.

Little could be more disastrous for the country than having that vitriolic humanoid pumpkin as our 'leader', since the only successful leading he's ever done is leading people to hate each other, and leading far more people to hate HIM. He's a fairly terrible business man, successful only due to starting with a "tiny loan" (his words, really more of a gift from daddy) of a million dollars and being forced to allow others to take control of his investments. He's a bold faced liar, in fact the truth does not seem to be palatable to him in the least....and he's clearly admitted that in his books and sees it as a good thing to hyper exaggerate and minimize. He's a 'good Christian', who's been divorced how many times? There's no way on earth his plans would even be tried. He (and other republican candidates) don't even have a grasp of what the president does or how, claiming they'll 'repeal the ACA on day one', and they'll discard multiple government departments...somethings the president simply CAN'T just do...along with most of their other ridiculous, impossible 'plans'. They all know they wouldn't actually have that power, yet they all lie to you and tell you they will do the hateful things they've convinced you are the right thing to do by themselves. Fortunately our system is designed so that one nutjob, or even one party of nutjobs can't change laws precipitously.

I hate to tell you, but Bernie Sanders is not excluded for being honest and knowledgeable. ALL candidates are socialist, he's just honest enough to admit it. Tax breaks for the rich...socialism. Bailouts for the airlines and banks...socialism. Social security...socialism. Medicare...socialism. "jobs programs"...socialism. Public parks...socialism. Public roads...socialism. Need I go on?

Your mischaracterization of Obama's record is so patently ridiculous it's not worth contradicting.

@Barbar

your comment is a non sequitur.
the video was not addressing those points but solely revealing the:employee/employer dynamic.

there is plenty of documentation that backs this videos claim that when people are given the illusion of being "free" they become far more productive.

there is nothing in your examples that the state gave out of benevolence.every example you posted were hard fought battles that were executed by the people.many died to earn those concessions,and they ARE concessions.

as for your final example of "quality of life".this just equates to more comfortable slaves.

the dynamic of employer/master/owner vs slave/peon/worker remains intact.

maybe it is the usage of the term slave that you find offensive?
ok..fair enough.the word is used for dramatic effect i agree.
how about we change the terminology to:power vs powerlessness.

in that context would you find this video more palatable?

I disagree. Debunking something that is widely accepted as true is an important thing to learn.
Of course, funny is completely subjective.
But I believe that this video does a public service, honestly, in a palatable way.

Same here, the new show is barely palatable. I hope this drift slowly back into the Colbert Report format, and for crying out loud, get rid of that sideshow/band!

I'm finding Maher less and less palatable as time goes on. These days he seems more annoying than funny.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.”
– Nancy Pelosi, US Congresswoman

“US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
– Diane Feinstein, US Senator

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell, Actress

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

“We must get rid of all the guns.”
- Sarah Brady, Widow of James Brady

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.”
- Ed Koch, former NYC Mayor

“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
- Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor

“an assault weapons ban is just the beginning...a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.”
- Jan Schakowsky, llinois Congresswoman

“governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms
- Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa state Rep.

Now, this was with a quick search on Google. I am sure there are more, but I just thought I would give a sample. Additionally, the really rabid activists have learned to rephrase statements to avoid the term ban. They aren't stupid, they know that they have to soften the phrasing to make it more palatable to the everyday citizen.

Upvote the fermented fish!
It tastes way better than it smells - and the smell from a freshly opened tin is the strongest and most pungent.
In Norway we settle for a more palatable version - "rakfisk" made from freshwater fish like trout, instead of herring. It is also is fermented and smelly, but far from the same level as the Surströmming.