This is a comment from that year old S4P post we discussed yesterday:

Choosing the least-worst candidate is an affront to the very concept of democratic self-governance. I believe in the value of that ideal more than I care about the Democratic party platform. If you think Clinton has the best platform on the ballot, go for it, but I'm not voting for any candidate just because they identify as Democrats. Democratic voters rejected Clinton 7 years ago for a more progressive candidate, and I find the DNC's insistence that we accept Clinton as the 2016 nominee repulsive.

Here are a couple comments that same person made yesterday and today:

Sadly, yes. That's the price of losing an election to a fascist nutjob. If you want to stop Trump, the best way to do it is through electing a Democratic-majority House in November 2018 who can impeach him based on Mueller's findings.

...

The right-wing propaganda machine is a disinformation engine like the world has never seen before. They've weaponized confirmation bias to destroy objective reality.

...

The major difference between this and Katrina is that the Republican party is no longer a somewhat functioning political party who could hold their own President accountable, but a brainwashed fascist cult who will never criticize their God Emperor. The handful of Trump supporters in the periphery of my life are already repeating his lie of 'It's Puerto Rico's fault for not helping themselves more' - as ever, the problem isn't Trump, the problem is the 63M Republican voters who weaponized him as an attack against America.

And here's my favorite, from a few days ago:

someone else said:

the numbers COULD have been better with effort and if different decisions were made by Sanders.

The bernie bro who was loudly declaring he'd never vote for Hillary before Trump actually got elected replied:

Or different decisions by Clinton (putting Sanders on as VP would have been the obvious move), or different decisions by Johnson, or different decisions by Trump. I suppose anything is possible, but Sanders voters split their votes in a way that was predictable and historically consistent with prior Democratic primary voters - statistics don't view their outcomes subjectively, and so the added horror of Trump doesn't really matter to how the electorate performed (as you can see by the quite average split of 62,984,825 people who voted for him).

So the guy that fell hook, line, and sinker for the republican propaganda machine Bernie supported that fucked over Hillary is now lecturing people about said propaganda machine and the horror that was allowing Trump to win.

Oh, and he has 3 posts in the Jane says Bernie would have won thread. One dismissing the south, one where he appears to think state results are decided on something other than a statewide total, and one arguing that Bernie would definitely not have lost any minority support in comparison to Hillary.