You keep responding with, more or less, “this isn’t about me, it’s about you” (“you” being some imagined idea of Jill Stein voters, I’m guessing). Yet, the entire article is framed with, “I know…” *I* being operative through all of this. So yes, it is about you, and your perception. To the extent the article is about whatever demographic you think you’re addressing, it’s entirely assumption (maybe even to the point of being unwittingly hyperbolic), and not short on outright fallacies. It’s fair for people to make this about you, pointing out the ridiculousness of YOUR assumptions.
It’s also quite bizarre that we’re in an era where the “enlightened” are in eternal favor of a 2 party system, of zealots using a political dogma to justify limiting political discourse. Shouldn’t people be encouraged to change the political landscape, to truly progress, acknowledging it’s a slow process? For what it’s worth, Sanders actually polled better against Trump than Clinton did, prior to her winning the nomination (through registered Democrats, who do not reflect many “liberal” voters) — so, arguably, it’s Clinton supporters who are selfish, choosing to do what suits them and the Democratic party, rather to reflect general support as shown in polls — but I digress. Still, if the will is to preserve some integrity of the Democratic party, fair — but Democrats lose the right to claim they care about actual issues more than they care about the party itself, and do not get to dismiss the ideals of others, then expect those others to suddenly fall in line with them.
Personally, I don’t like Trump, I don’t like Stein, I don’t like Johnson, and I don’t like Clinton. I truly can’t see myself voting for any of them. Is that selfish and putting my own idealism ahead of pragmatism? Perhaps. But until each voter can function as an individual and vote their conscience, the “lesser of two evils” will continue to be more and more “evil”. Is voting for a candidate who opposes the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, who championed NAFTA, who did not support same-sex marriage until a few years ago (and not until years after it exploded as a major political issue with California’s Prop 8 — so she’s hardly one to trust to be ahead of the curve on social issues, and however that relates to nominations, etc…), whose funding suggests where she errs with soft stances on offshore drilling and such, etc… really the conscientious thing? You can attack Stein supporters all you want, and say they don’t really care because they refuse to vote for Clinton… but couldn’t you then also say Democrats don’t care, either, since they nominated her rather than Sanders? In both scenarios, it’s a matter of individuals refusing to side with the lesser of two evils (ie: Dems refusing to side with Sanders, and now ex-Sanders supporters refusing to side with Dems). It seems, for that alone, every point you made is entirely hypocritical. The same logic could be turned into an editorial piece about how Democrats do not care about any of those issues for failing to support Sanders, just as you say Stein supporters don’t care for failing to support Clinton. Your argument is really nothing more than a hypocritical tantrum about how you feel you should get your way.
And let’s not forget that 10 years ago, Trump’s views were actually decidedly more “progressive” than Clinton’s at the time. Certainly his current rhetoric is worrying, but you do seem to ignore the issue that some wonder how much of it is purely rhetoric. And how much of Clinton’s positives, reflective of saying what she needs to sway ex-Sanders supporters, is also just rhetoric, given her actual record (which, generally, is decidedly conservative — not only on war and environmental issues, but even social issues quite often). This isn’t in defense of Trump (he’s terrifying)… but to say Clinton is the lesser of two evils becomes a matter of opinion in itself.
Regardless of any of that, how people choose to vote is not only about selecting a candidate, but also about gaining representation for different parties, and more ideal candidates, in future elections. Without that present sacrifice, our future political climate is bound to eternally be down to deciding between 2 evils. For some, who see this election as 2 evils, the hope of future elections — and supporting the introduction of more progressive views/parties in mainstream politics — becomes more important. So yes, maybe they do care about the environment… so much that they’re willing to sacrifice the next 4 years in the hope that, after that — whether it be through the Green Party/whatever having better representation, or through forcing Democrats to change and better reflect those views to earn back vote — the options will be better. Otherwise, what motivation do Democrats have to better their platforms, to reflect disenchanted voters who DO care about these issues, if they’re getting votes, skirting by and winning elections regardless?