Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Matthew Sheppard: Two seemingly opposed trends -- Donald Trump's norm-destroying presidency and the astonishing comeuppance faced by numerous media and political figures accused of sexual misconduct -- are changing American politics in major ways. ... At least on this issue, Democrats and liberals appear to be moving toward higher moral standards in public life. On the political right, however, there is a growing segment pushing in the opposite direction. Once the religious right and their more secular allies decided to overlook Trump's constant stream of lies, his frequent promotion of bigotry and the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct against him, anything was possible.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Fox News and talk radio have also reversed themselves on Trump's qualifications. But in the right-wing media realm, no conservative outlet has flip-flopped to such extremes as the Federalist, an online publication that caters to a Christian right audience and was founded by Ben Domenech, a former Washington Post blogger who was fired by the paper for serial plagiarism. ...

Before Trump became the Republican nominee, Domenech and his publication adamantly opposed the former game show host. Domenech was even invited to appear in National Review's "Against Trump" symposium, where he denounced the candidate at length.

"The case for constitutional limited government is the case against Donald Trump," he wrote, arguing that the billionaire businessman would use "authoritarian power" to impose his will on America.

Once Trump attained full control over the GOP and Republican voters began uniting behind him, however, the Federalist turned on a dime and began slavishly defending Trump at almost any opportunity.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Today the Pervert in Chief actually endorsed the Pervert running for the Senate in Alabama with the apparent blessing of the Majority Leader in the Senate.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-05 09:03 AM | Reply

One of the wonderfully pagan things the alleged Christian minister said, defending Moore's predatory behavior, was that he had to hit on little girls because-after serving in Vietnam-all the big ones were taken.

I don't remember it that way.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-05 09:40 AM | Reply

Party over EVERYTHING

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-05 09:59 AM | Reply

The GOP has become a cult.

Morality, lawfulness, democracy is all laid waste at the altar of corporate greed, tax cuts and corruption.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-05 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

In the end it don't matter. All the GOP has to do is say they are the higher moral party. That's it. Actions are irrelevant to the GOP voter.

When you elect a "man" with five kids from three different wives with self admitted sexual assault all moral standing has been doused with gasoline, lit on fire and pissed on by russian hookers.

#5 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-05 11:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

When you elect a "man" with five kids from three different wives with self admitted sexual assault all moral standing has been doused with gasoline, lit on fire and pissed on by russian hookers.

#5 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-05 11:01 AM | Reply |

I like to think that hookers have higher standards.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-05 11:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The Federalist is completely crazy.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-12-05 10:01 PM | Reply

The Federalist is completely crazy.

#7 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Have you ever read anything published at the Federalist?

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 02:46 PM | Reply

Republicans said gay marriage would lead to pedophilia. Apparently being a Republican leads to pedophilia.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-06 02:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Republicans said gay marriage would lead to pedophilia. Apparently being a Republican leads to pedophilia.
#9 | Posted by Sycophant

No, you got that wrong, gay marriage leads to sex with animals. Being a Republican leads to pedophilia. And apparently homosexuality, so I guess sex with animals is the next step.

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-06 02:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Federalist is completely crazy.

#7 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Have you ever read anything published at the Federalist?

#8 | Posted by JeffJ

Maybe Bruce is talking about that dumbass poster named the Federalist who sucks up and regurgitates every morsel of Russian propaganda there is out there.

At first I too thought this was thread devoted to trashing him.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 03:02 PM | Reply

The Federalist is completely crazy.
#7 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER
Have you ever read anything published at the Federalist?
#8 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes, quite a bit. They get posted a lot on RealClearPolitics. Then again RCP leans right and posts NYPost stories too.

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-06 03:08 PM | Reply

For what it is worth, I really really agree with the premise of this article. Now that Trump is POTUS and has turned all our moral norms our their head, rightwingers everywhere (- in the media and on the street) are slavishly defending Trump at every opportunity. Morally, I have never seen anything like it. At the risk of violating Godwin's law, it is how I must imagine the moral compass of the German people started spinning out of control after Hitler took over. Rightwingers now seem able to justify any outrageous or horrendous behavior coming from rightwing politicians. It is surreal. And scary.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-12-06 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

For what it is worth, I really really agree with the premise of this article. Now that Trump is POTUS and has turned all our moral norms our their head, rightwingers everywhere (- in the media and on the street) are slavishly defending Trump at every opportunity. Morally, I have never seen anything like it. At the risk of violating Godwin's law, it is how I must imagine the moral compass of the German people started spinning out of control after Hitler took over. Rightwingers now seem able to justify any outrageous or horrendous behavior coming from rightwing politicians. It is surreal. And scary.

#13 | Posted by moder8

And the one thing you can count on, everyone who is enabling trump now is going to deny it after he's gone.

Same way all these republicans became "independents*" after dubya.

*who just happen to take all the same stances as republicans and repeat all the same lies.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Mod, it's okay, you don't have to be overly concerned with Godwin's Law these days. Mike Godwin made a statement recently that when you have actual Nazi's roaming the streets and halls of government it perfectly acceptable to name them Nazi's.

#15 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-12-06 03:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

- everyone who is enabling trump now is going to deny it after he's gone.

lol, it will be like trying to find a two-time GW voter today.

The only people around here that will admit to having voted for Trump will be Snippy, FishP, and HRat.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 03:32 PM | Reply

Have you ever read anything published at the Federalist?

#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-12-06 02:46 PM | FLAG:

I have read quite a few. They are going bananas.

You have no claim to reality JeffJ. You've also been going off the rails.

The Train Trump is running on Republicans is making them lose their minds.

#17 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-12-06 03:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Welcome to the natural conclusion of partisan party loyalty.

#18 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 03:51 PM | Reply

- partisan party loyalty.

When one of the only two legitimately electable parties has provided policies and candidates that have been better for America than the other party for more than 60 years, partisanship is no vice. It's the only thing that makes sense in most national elections.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 03:55 PM | Reply

I think of it as a toxic cocktail of partisan loyalty, a media hell-bent on dividing and controlling, combined with the advent of the mindf*ck-to-humanity known as the internet.

Our only defense is reason, and it is in short supply.

#20 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2017-12-06 04:02 PM | Reply

#19 asking you to stop to think about anything is too much to ask. But I would ask others consider how politicians would be forced to change in the absence of an easily manipulated hyper partisan voting public.

#21 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 04:08 PM | Reply

Welcome to the natural conclusion of partisan party loyalty.

#18 | Posted by Sully

Welcome to the natural conclusion of lying to people and telling them the parties are the same so they don't vote.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 04:10 PM | Reply

- But I would ask others consider how politicians would be forced to change in the absence of an easily manipulated hyper partisan voting public.

You would Deflect to a FantasyLand rather than deal with the reality in which we vote. As a matter of fact, you just did. You always do.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#22 lol that's stupid and crazy

#24 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 04:29 PM | Reply

#24 lol that's insipid and ignorant.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 04:32 PM | Reply

#23 human intelligence boils down to the ability to anticipate future outcomes based on experience, which is how I knew that you wouldn't be up for what I was asking. Only a pea brain thinks anything that isn't in front of his face is a fantasy. In reality hyper venomous partisan politics and blind loyalty have not been the norm for most of our history.

But continue defending counter productive behavior that is bringing us all down. We know you can't do better.

#26 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- up for what I was asking.

You are ignoring the reality of the voting situation we have and changing the subject to some hypothetical situation we do not have.

Try living, and voting, in the real world for a change rather than in your dark and dismal head.

In reality, one party has provided better policy options and better candidates than the other for more than half a century at least. Favoring that party over the only other existing competitive party in a winner take all national election only makes sense.... which is why the "partisan hack" meme you always post is SO lame.

Unless, of course, one is just holding one's dick in one's tiny hand and enjoying the feeling of pretending that things are not what they are.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#22 lol that's stupid and crazy

#24 | Posted by Sully

No that's the whole point of whataboutism - a KGB technique of making everyone think that both political choices are equally bad, in order to make people give up on political engagement.

en.wikipedia.org

And you're falling for it like a chump.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 05:19 PM | Reply

Re#27 - even most party loyalists would concede that political discourse had been devolving to the point where reasonable compromise is nearly impossible and that this is bad for us all.

But not Corky the Unthinking. Nope. He is so conditioned that even the idea that everyone should be more civil and willing to listen instead of blindly striking out is offensive to him.

And he lacks the intelligence to understand how small that makes him look to reasonable people. Most hacks are at least smart enough to pretend to support civility.

Anyway, you can assume that when I ask others to consider something I'm not talking to you, Corky. I know what you "think" about anything already. No need to be offended by the suggestion that you really think because I would never expect that from you.

#29 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 05:23 PM | Reply

#28 this entire attack is a straw man and I have not said what you are attributing to me. You're an idiot who tells lies about things that anyone here can still read. Go nip at another ankle you are not qualified to mess with me, you sad little fool.

I have never suggested that anyone not vote. You are a liar.

#30 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 05:27 PM | Reply

Re#27 - even most party loyalists would concede that political discourse had been devolving to the point where reasonable compromise is nearly impossible and that this is bad for us all.

#29 | Posted by Sully

Yes but objective observers would say that didn't originate on the left. There is no left fox news, which was created simply to misinform gullible chumps and make them vote in the interests of billionaires sociopaths. There was no birther movement on the left. No one yelled YOU LIE at trump's state of the union.

The first step to fixing any problem is to stop saying "well everyone is to blame" and figure out where the problem actually originates from.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 05:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In reality I am suggesting a greater level of engagement than simply rooting for a party like it is a sports team.

The exact opposite of what Speaks is claiming.

Dumb people tell dumb lies.

#32 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 05:33 PM | Reply

#29

What's obvious to everyone is that rather than defend your stupid "partisan hack" meme, or your even stupider strategery to "throw away your vote" because you can't deal with the reality of maybe having to vote for the lesser evil, as most grown-ups do... you Deflect to whining about reality rather than dealing with it.

Bernie told his supporters that this wasn't a time to build on 3rd parties when so much was at stake... but some people were too self-concerned and took their ball and went home when it was time to vote rather than make the tough choices.

But hey, Trump wouldn't have won otherwise. Congrats!

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 05:38 PM | Reply

- I am suggesting a greater level of engagement than simply rooting for a party like it is a sports team.

Hilarious. You just position yourself as "not responsible" for outcomes by creating your own imaginary 3rd party that could somehow actually win, but never does.

Despite your egoism; your your self-declared magnificence at greater levels of "engagement", you are actually a political coward who hides behind non-existent options and ignorant memes directed at people who actually make the tough choices.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 05:45 PM | Reply

"In reality I am suggesting a greater level of engagement than simply rooting for a party like it is a sports team."

Yes you're really taking it to the next level by also rooting against sports teams, by not voting for them.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 05:46 PM | Reply

#33 blah blah blah. You'll always have an excuse to continue our race to the bottom.

Get it through your thick skull that I don't care that one objectively horrible person is in office instead of the other objectively horrible person who you supported because letter D.

#36 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 05:48 PM | Reply

#34 you can lie all you want about non existent options but your brand of idiocy had not always been the norm and won't be forever because we simply can't afford it

#37 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 05:50 PM | Reply

#35 holding my vote to a different standard is not logical. I vote for candidates just like anyone else. There is no special ballot used to vote against anyone. Your lies are dumber than Speaks' and that I saying something

#38 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 05:54 PM | Reply

"your brand of idiocy had not always been the norm and won't be forever"

But it certainly was last November, and realistically, one of the only two choices. And sometimes, sadly, you have to vote for the lesser of the idiocies.

For example, do you believe we would've had a similar Chaos Presidency under HRC, or less idiotic?

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 05:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In reality I am suggesting a greater level of engagement than simply rooting for a party like it is a sports team.

The exact opposite of what Speaks is claiming.

Dumb people tell dumb lies.

#32 | Posted by Sully

I'm CLAIMING we have acknowledge the reality of our problems before we can fix them. That's not partisan it's pure logic.

Saying "all sides are equally bad" is delusion. Delusional problem solvers can't solve any problems.

Find me a post where I root for the DNC, if i'm rooting for them like a sports team.

Saying a flu is far better than AIDS is not ROOTING for a flu. It's simply a statement of fact.

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 05:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I fail to see how anyone can still push the "both sides are just as bad" argument in the face of Donald effing Trump. I used to agree with that line of thinking, and I probably will after he's gone, but both sides really are not as bad at this particular moment in history. Failure to acknowledge that is a failure to critically examine even the slightest details on what is going on right now.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 06:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

- I don't care

That's obvious to us all... you don't care that the better set of policies for America (see: because letter D) were defeated.... by people like you who don't care, and are not either bright enough nor brave enough to make a choice, even if they think it is a choice of the lesser evil.

Nothing you do by lazily harping on people as "hacks" who do make that choice or throwing away your vote changes that.

Really, it's all just your HDS talking. Even some chronic HDS suffers were smart enough to pick Dem policies over GOP polices with their vote despite the name of the candidate.

But then, you've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that, really, you aren't that bright to begin with.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 06:01 PM | Reply

#40 I have said that both parties are corrupted by the same moneyed interests but I have never said they are the same. You lied about that.

I have never suggested that anyone not vote nor is that a goal of mine. Again, you lied. Stupidly.

In this very post you are shilling for one party rule while denying it. Hilarious

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 06:04 PM | Reply

#41 nobody said that so you can go back under your rock now

What i have said is that both Trump and Hillary were unacceptable to me and I stand by that

#44 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 06:07 PM | Reply

Would Hillary Clinton have:

-Signed the currently pending tax cut bill?
-Appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court?
-Attempted a thinly veiled muslim ban?
-Done everything in her power to weaken Obamacare?
-Pushed to spend billions on a border wall?
-Shrunk the Bears Ears monument by 85%?
-Reversed the EPA's clean power plan?

If you answer "yes" or even "i don't know" to those questions, you are intellectually dishonest and nobody should bother talking to you.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 06:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

- unacceptable to me

Did I mention self-serving egoism and putting one's personal preferences above what's best for the country, you know, civic responsibility... in this case in the form of voting for Dem polices rather than GOP polices?

I think I did. But there will always be some spoiled brats who, if they don't get things exactly their own way, will revel is spoiling things for everyone else.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 06:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What i have said is that both Trump and Hillary were unacceptable to me and I stand by that

#44 | Posted by Sully

Were they both EQUALLY unacceptable? Could you discern ANY difference for the policies care about between the two?

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 06:15 PM | Reply

*for the policies YOU care about

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 06:25 PM | Reply

If you answer "yes" or even "i don't know" to those questions, you are intellectually dishonest and nobody should bother talking to you.

#45 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2017-12-06 06:08 PM | REPLY |

Its a stupid series of questions to ask. This is a documented warmongering liar who is known to be under the influence of corporate money, who cheated during the debates and still couldn't beat Trump and who wasn't smart enough to figure out that she need to campaign in the swing states. Would she have done the same exact things as Trump? No. But she'd be doing her own horrible things instead. We'd may be mired in an escalating war in Syria right now, for example. If your only point is that she's not the same exact person as Trump, that's pretty lame. It was her main message during the campaign and that is why she lost in the first place.

#49 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 06:47 PM | Reply

Did I mention self-serving egoism and putting one's personal preferences above what's best for the country, you know, civic responsibility...

#46 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-12-06 06:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

What is best for this country is that we stop electing horrible people into high office.

#50 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 06:48 PM | Reply

Were they both EQUALLY unacceptable? Could you discern ANY difference for the policies care about between the two?

#47 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-12-06 06:15 PM | FLAG:

Unacceptable is unacceptable. You're making an argument that continually lowers the bar. We will be living in a 3rd world country inside of 20 years if we keep listening to lesser evil arguments.

#51 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 06:51 PM | Reply

This is a documented warmongering liar who is known to be under the influence of corporate money, who cheated during the debates and still couldn't beat Trump and who wasn't smart enough to figure out that she need to campaign in the swing states. Would she have done the same exact things as Trump? No. But she'd be doing her own horrible things instead. We'd may be mired in an escalating war in Syria right now, for example. If your only point is that she's not the same exact person as Trump, that's pretty lame. It was her main message during the campaign and that is why she lost in the first place.

#49 | POSTED BY SULLY

By that kind of logic, the best thing to do when you stub your toe is to cut off your leg.

In other words, electing trump was a moronic response to hillary being less than ideal.

#52 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-06 07:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Unacceptable is unacceptable. You're making an argument that continually lowers the bar. We will be living in a 3rd world country inside of 20 years if we keep listening to lesser evil arguments.

#51 | Posted by Sully

Then you ARE saying hillary and trump are EQUAL. Which means you're an idiot, working against the priorities you claim to hold.

If we always voted for the lesser evil, government would gradually become less evil. The problem is people who are too dumb to see which evil is lesser.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In other words, electing trump was a moronic response to hillary being less than ideal.

#52 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES AT 2017-12-06 07:06 PM | FLAG:

I didn't elect Trump.

#54 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 07:08 PM | Reply

- I didn't elect Trump.

You didn't help elect his only opponent... and he'll take that kind of support any day.

- What is best for this country is that we stop electing horrible people into high office.

And what did throwing away your vote do to help change that? Besides nothing at all.

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 07:20 PM | Reply

You didn't help elect his only opponent... and he'll take that kind of support any day.

#55 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-12-06 07:20 PM | REPLY

That isn't support. Learn how voting works before you say stupid things.

#56 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 07:25 PM | Reply

And what did throwing away your vote do to help change that? Besides nothing at all.
#55 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-12-06 07:20 PM | FLAG:

What did voting for Hillary do, moron?

#57 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 07:26 PM | Reply

Hillary is as bad (I'd argue worse) than Trump but for completely different reasons.

I didn't vote for either one of them.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 07:31 PM | Reply

-If we always voted for the lesser evil, government would gradually become less evil.

No less a genius political voice than Noam Chomsky has made that perfectly clear... not that Sulled-Up would notice... or understand if he did.

"Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as the "politics of moral witness." Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that "a lesser of two evils is still evil."

Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting - i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4).

The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves."

chomsky.info

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 07:34 PM | Reply

- What did voting for Hillary do, moron?

Unlike your vote, it almost keep the Orange Douche out of office.... withing a statistical fluke at the EC.

- Learn how voting works

Read Chomsky on the ethics of voting based on likely consequences rather than a more selfish a form of individual self-expression. We'll help with you with the big words. WARNING: It's not in crayon and may contain multisybalic words.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 07:39 PM | Reply

Hillary is as bad (I'd argue worse) than Trump but for completely different reasons.
#58 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

The reasons may be different, but they probably aren't valid.

#61 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-06 07:45 PM | Reply

It's a stupid series of questions to ask.

In other words, you're not willing to answer them because it would make your "argument" weak, so you just say the questions are stupid.

They're very relevant questions - those are some of the worst things Trump has done so far as President, so in an argument over who would have been a better president, it's highly pertinent whether the other candidate with a chance of winning would have also done those things. Your avoidance of this point doesn't stop it from being relevant.

If your only point is that she's not the same exact person as Trump, that's pretty lame. I

Nice strawman. You don't have to round up "would she have done these bad things" to "are they the same person" unless you have no argument left to make.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 07:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Anyone who says Hillary would be worse than Trump has completely lost their connection with reality. I don't think you could overwstimate how much he has lowered America's stature as a nation.

Hillary was a terrible candidate. On a scale of 0-100, higher being more terrible, she was probably an 85. Trump is 100 and he smashed the meter.

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 08:01 PM | Reply

"In other words, you're not willing to answer them because it would make your "argument" weak, so you just say the questions are stupid."

I did answer. I said she would not have done the same things as Trump. She is horrible in her own way.

I concede the point but its a dumb point that does nothing for her fitness to be president.

"Nice strawman. You don't have to round up "would she have done these bad things" to "are they the same person" unless you have no argument left to make."

Not at all. You can't make a single argument as to why anyone would want to vote for Hillary that isn't centered around Trump.

#64 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 08:24 PM | Reply

#59

A clumsy argument typical of a man operating outside his field of expertise. Chomsky may be fine enough as a linguist but as an ethicist he is inexcusably sloppy. For starters, he takes as assumed a consequentialist ethical framework he doesn't bother to defend (as well he would: a deontological position, to name just one alternative, would undermine his whole argument). Further, he claims, again without real argument, that the politics of witness is merely self-indulgence, ignoring the fact that concerns over losing votes to third party candidates has a real impact on how candidates in the two major parties behave AND the fact that the two dominant parties in the US political landscape have changed repeatedly over the course of US history. His suggestion that people should vote for the lesser evil and then return to activism etc. as a means of undermining the two party system likewise ignores the effect that the one has on the other: how seriously can we take a supposed reformer who is so sanguine about propping up during an election the very system he seeks to oppose with the remainder of his time?

#65 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 08:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

^Linguistic philosopher, not linguist...

#66 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 08:31 PM | Reply

-If we always voted for the lesser evil, government would gradually become less evil.

#59 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-12-06 07:34 PM | FLAG:

Demonstrably untrue. It isn't straight line but over time we've seen that politicians are becoming more and more open about serving the special interests. And their supporters are constantly making lesser evil arguments to justify voting for them instead of telling us why these people deserve to hold office. Look at Alabama right now. Moore still has a chance because a pervert is less evil than a "liberal" to many of those hicks. 30 years ago, he would have no chance once those stories came out. Lesser evil voting makes evil the norm.

Hiding under Chomsky's skirts doesn't change that for you, Corky. He's clearly wrong and you clearly can't think for yourself.

#67 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 08:33 PM | Reply

You can't make a single argument as to why anyone would want to vote for Hillary that isn't centered around Trump.

Oh, i'm sorry that in a thread comparing Hillary and Trump i had the audacity to compare Hillary and Trump. I'll try not to do that next time.

Like it or not, issues like taxes, the environment, and supreme court justices are significant today. If you start grabbing specific issues like that and realizing Hillary would be better than Trump on virtually all of them, I think that leads to a conclusion you don't want to admit. Unless you can grab a handful of issues you think Trump would be better on than Hillary. I'm all ears.

#68 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Joe,
Does your crystal ball tell you what wars Hillary has or hasn't started by now?

#69 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-12-06 08:36 PM | Reply

(I don't know why you have a crystal ball, because it's not like you predicted what Hillary would have done, but I'm assigning that to you anyway)

#70 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-12-06 08:37 PM | Reply

"Look at Alabama right now. Moore still has a chance because a pervert is less evil than a "liberal" to many of those hicks."

Deplorable.

Except when Clinton said that, you said she was turning them away from supporting her.

So now you're turning them away... from voting third party I guess.

But I guess it doesn't matter when you call them mean names, since your party never had a chance in the first place.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 08:38 PM | Reply

Trump is doing to the USA what BP did to the Deepwater Horizon.

#72 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-12-06 08:41 PM | Reply

Chair,

As much as Trump has ramped up drone strikes in the middle east, provoked North Korea, and generally provoked much of the world with his inflammatory idiocy, i'll concede that Hillary might very well have been worse on war. But i also think that's one of the only issues she'd be worse on, including personal graft, a subject on which she's hard to be worse than.

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 08:42 PM | Reply

"You can't make a single argument as to why anyone would want to vote for Hillary that isn't centered around Trump."

You can't make a single argument for Stein that isn't centered around Trump and Clinton both being unacceptable.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 08:42 PM | Reply

I'm not running for office, Snoofy. Nor did I make a big deal about the "deplorable" comment. T

#75 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 08:44 PM | Reply

You can't make a single argument for Stein that isn't centered around Trump and Clinton both being unacceptable.

Oh come on, of course he can.

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 08:49 PM | Reply

Unless you can grab a handful of issues you think Trump would be better on than Hillary. I'm all ears.

#68 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2017-12-06 08:35 PM | FLAG:

As you already conceded, her foreign policy may have very well been worse given her affinity for war and backroom dealings with Al Qaeda. But I've never made a better/worse argument. My position is that neither is acceptable. Hillary would be working with a friendly media and there is no telling what kind of garbage they would have normalized for decades to come. If she would tell us what she is promising Goldman Sachs when they are personally paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars at a pop, I could be more specific. But unfortunately, the little people are not privy to her private positions. At least with Trump, there is an open acknowledgement that what he is doing is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated and I can only hope that future election results will reflect that.

In 2004, I voted for Kerry - a bad candidate in his own right but not with Hillary's baggage and record for absurdly poor judgement. I did so because I wanted Bush - a worse president than Trump so far - gone. It never once occurred to me to chastise people who didn't vote for Kerry. I voted for someone who I didn't want to see in office and never felt right about being a party to that. I regretted it before the results were in and even though he would easily carry my state with or without me. When there are other choices available, I will not vote for someone who I don't want to see holding office. I've decided that the irrational behavior of others is not justification for doing something I know to be wrong.

#77 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 09:00 PM | Reply

Hillary is as bad (I'd argue worse) than Trump but for completely different reasons.

I didn't vote for either one of them.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ

What is hillary worse than trump on?

#78 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 09:04 PM | Reply

Demonstrably untrue. It isn't straight line but over time we've seen that politicians are becoming more and more open about serving the special interests. And their supporters are constantly making lesser evil arguments to justify voting for them instead of telling us why these people deserve to hold office. Look at Alabama right now. Moore still has a chance because a pervert is less evil than a "liberal" to many of those hicks. 30 years ago, he would have no chance once those stories came out. Lesser evil voting makes evil the norm.

#67 | Posted by Sully

Thats because alabama hasn't been electing the lesser evil. They THINK they are, but they've been doing the opposite. To most alabama idiots, they see the person who guts support for the planet and the poor to be less evil than the person who does fight for those things.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 09:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If Biden would have run, none of this would even be an issue.
Nobody, including Trump thought he would win.
Then the Dems foisted Hillary upon us, and the rest is history.

#80 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-12-06 09:08 PM | Reply

You can't make a single argument for Stein that isn't centered around Trump and Clinton both being unacceptable.

#74 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-06 08:42 PM | FLAG:

www.jill2016.com

"End destructive energy extraction and associated infrastructure

Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks, and pollinators

Replace NAFTA and other corporate free trade agreements that export American jobs, depress wages, and undermine the sovereign right of Americans and citizens of other countries to control their own economy and political choices. Enact fair trade laws that benefits local workers and communities

Make Wall Street, big corporations, and the rich pay their fair share of taxes

End contracts with private prison corporations.

End the failed war on drugs. Replace drug prohibition with harm reduction. Legalize marijuana/hemp.

Demilitarize police. End use of SWAT teams and no-knock raids for drugs and serving papers.

Body Cams/Film the Police: End the prosecution and retaliation of citizen filming of police incidents, and withdraw federal funding from police departments with needlessly high rates of camera shutoff or disrepair.

Terminate unconstitutional surveillance and unwarranted spying

Eliminate the doctrine of corporate personhood that among other things has been used to justify unlimited corporate spending in elections with a constitutional amendment to clarify that only human beings have constitutional rights.

Enact electoral reforms that break the big money stranglehold and create truly representative democracy: full public election financing, ranked-choice voting, proportional representation, and open debates.

Break up "too-big-to-fail" banks and democratize the Federal Reserve.

End the destructive US economic and military intervention into the affairs of sovereign nations. Such intervention serve the interests of multinational corporations and global capitalism over the interests of the vast majority of the citizens of those nations.

Honor all laws concerning time limits on deployments and between deployments."

It isn't realistic to think she'd be able to do most of these things. And there is also alot in that link that I don't agree with. But it is very clear to me that this is not someone who is beholden to bankers, big pharma, the military complex, the prison complex, etc. She would have done what she can to shift power away from these people and undo some of the damage they've done. And she was unique in this regard.

#81 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 09:12 PM | Reply

Thats because alabama hasn't been electing the lesser evil.

#79 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-12-06 09:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

According to you. They feel that "liberal" policy is evil. They also know that Moore is evil. But they can justify supporting evil by calling it the lesser evil. Normalizing voting for people we know to be unfit is a race to the bottom.

#82 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 09:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"www.jill2016.com"

What followed was a laundry list of reasons Stein is acceptable, because the policies of Clinton and/or Trump are not those policies. Mostly Trump.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 09:30 PM | Reply

Typical absurdly untrue and intellectually dishonest Snoofy post.

#84 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 09:33 PM | Reply

"Then the Dems foisted Hillary upon us, and the rest is history. "

No that is nonsense. Biden was mourning the death of his son. Hillary won the nomination by a wide majority then won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes but then Interstate Crosscheck disqualified 1.1 million voters in several important swing states allowing Trump to win the Presidency without getting even close in the popular vote. My big complaint about Democrats today, why aren't they screaming about that, why didn't Hillary? Why didn't John Kerry scream when the Presidency was stolen from him? Democrats need to grow spines.

#85 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-06 10:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The GOP has become the party of ever changing morality and standards that are applied to the opposition without fail.

2009-2016 Unprecedented obstructionism including denying a SCOTUS nominee. 2017 suddenly they are whining over obstructionism.

1994 They make a huge stink over Bill Clinton avoiding the Vietnam war. 2012, 2016 They support two draft dodgers.

The party of family values elects a man with five children from three different women.

Make a stink over Michelle having bare arms, cheer with glee with Melania posing nude.

Scream vehemently over Anthony Weiner sexting a teenager. Embracing Roy Moore, a pedophile who sexually assaulted a 14 year old.

2008 - 2016 The debt is going to kill us! 2017 Lets add AN ADDITIONAL $1,500,000,000 in new debt ABOVE the $600,000,000,000 we add every year anyways.

#86 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-07 08:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What is hillary worse than trump on?

#78 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hillary was worse than Dotards promises.

Dotards actions are far far far worse than Hillary ever could have been.

#87 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-07 08:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I fail to see how anyone can still push the "both sides are just as bad" argument in the face of Donald effing Trump. I used to agree with that line of thinking, and I probably will after he's gone, but both sides really are not as bad at this particular moment in history. Failure to acknowledge that is a failure to critically examine even the slightest details on what is going on right now.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag

But it isn't Dotard that is pushing the agenda. It is Mike Pence. It is Paul Ryan. It is Mitch McConnell. It is all the rest of the greedy corrupt GOP. They are all complicit in this disgrace. They are pushing the agenda. Dotard is just the one polishing the turd. There are a few exceptions inside the GOP, but by and far almost all of them are just greedy corrupt corporate shills.

How many in the House that are selling out their blue state constituents by killing the SALT deduction?

How many of them are -------- that railed against deficit spending until this bill?

Plenty.

#88 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-07 09:14 AM | Reply

88- I agree, but my point was that Hillary wouldn't sign off on much of this agenda, which is what makes her better than Trump.

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 09:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort