Then again though... Sanders backed Hilary Clinton. Not exactly a great position to take.
"How dare politicians make negative compromises for the greater good -they should take extreme good positions without compromise even if it means contributing to a greater evil!"
You're basically saying all compromise is bad by your own logic, which would fundamentally break governance as a whole. By its very nature, compromise involves tolerating somewhat bad outcomes for the greater good. Though, not surprising as a stance if you fundamentally oppose the government as a whole. Things like diplomacy, tolerating insertion of bad things into overall half-decent bills, allowing gradual progress even if there's a degree of regress.
Now of course you can just go "but Trump go elected anyway!" but at that point that's just a result of Sanders losing a safe bet, not Sanders making a bad bet -only a few tens of thousands of votes in the 'wrong' physical locations caused the loss of this otherwise safe bet. Sanders got unlucky with Trump winning insofar as Hillary lost causing a mass cultural division and shift in favor of fascist-style politics, but it would be foolish to equate unlucky with unwise.
To insist Sanders was wrong to compromise is not a criticism of Sanders but you conveying your ideological position in a roundabout way that one should take an extreme 'good' position to create a small direct good outcome even if it means indirectly causing an overall far greater evil outcome to occur. It's childish at best.
