Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Why do so many famous social-justice crusaders turn out to be racist and sexist? Conventional wisdom would suggest that liberal politicians and celebrities should be the least likely to express such racist condescension, if only out of cynical careerist and political concerns. Progressives see bloc minority, gay, and female support as vital to their project. By now, the number of MeToo accusers in the post–Harvey Weinstein era is legion. But increasingly, the most prominent of those accused of sundry harassments and, on occasion, assaults are liberal media and celebrity icons such as Tom Brokaw, Garrison Keillor, Matt Lauer, Ryan Lizza, Charlie Rose, and Tavis Smiley. How can that be?

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The entire thrust of progressive charges of "white privilege" and "white supremacy," usually lodged against less enlightened and less affluent whites, is that the elite are confident they've created a partnership of solidarity with minority activists. All deplore the supposed Neanderthal, red-state, and Trump-supporting white middle class. However, the amount (and frequency) of insensitive and outright prejudicial statements from progressive is startling, to say the least.

There are various stock explanations for liberal prejudicial outbursts that earn the additional wage of hypocrisy -- given progressives' self-identification as the protectors of minority rights and racial sensitivities.

One, and the most charitable, might be that when one talks about race and gender nonstop, one is more likely to misspeak. Such an interpretation assumes, of course, that these revelations are not windows into one soul, as progressives allege of foul-sounding conservatives.

Two, do not forget the cynical notion of deterrence. Humans are not necessarily nice people but behave well out of fear of punishments. In such a reductionist view, conservatives assume that one malapropism or sloppy phrase can end a career.

There is a third and more controversial exegesis. There is a certain progressive profile that is, in truth, biased or at least tribal. One projects one's own prejudices onto others in the abstract, as a sort of psychological squaring of one's own shortcomings -- or the failure to live the race and class diversity one preaches.

Finally, there is a final and mostly cynical explanation for the recent spate of progressive intolerance. Those who are by nature or habit intolerant mask their resulting guilt or fear by progressive virtue-signaling and occasional inadvertent revelations of their own moral selves.

Comments

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

I want to throw out 3 names:

Sally Kohn
Kirsten Powers
Ken Stern

There is a reason why I posted those 3 names on this thread.

I'll wait and see if anyone figures it out...

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-15 02:27 PM | Reply

"There is a reason why I posted those 3 names on this thread I'll wait and see if anyone figures it out"

you posted them because you are a whiney bitch with "conservative" Tourette syndrome and you just can't help yourself.?

#2 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-05-15 02:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 10

Wow. You mean to tell me that the rwinger from the Hoover Inst, author of such classics as, "Donald Trump, Tragic Hero" hates on liberals with nonsensical rwing spin?

Compared to rwingers, much fewer liberals "turn out to be racist and sexist".... the list he mentions being very much the exception rather than the rule.

And then applying his false narrative to the progressive movement in general is just more anti-intellectual rwing porn from the National Re-do.

Sad.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 02:54 PM | Reply

Bill O'Riley, Donald Trump, H.W. Bush, Roy Moore.

Big difference between liberals and conservatives, liberal women are encouraged to report even if it hurts their political party while conservatives are not encouraged to report if it is likely to harm their political party.
How else could Donald Trump gain the majority of white women voting in this country when we all knew he bragged about sexually assaulting women?

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-05-15 02:55 PM | Reply

While we wait for an answer to Jeff's question (I really have no idea), I thought this passage was particularly edifying:

In the last 30 years, we've seen the growth of an entire new class of bicoastal gentrified urban elites who are ostensibly -- on matters of race, class, and sex -- hyper-progressive. But are they really?

Often their rhetoric is belied by their own behavior, if gauged by where they live, where they put their children in school, and the people with whom they socialize. One of the great ironies of the entire 21st-century obsession with race is the fact that supposedly racist lower-middle-class whites are often more likely than gentry whites to live among non-whites. The diversity they experience is a natural expression of shared work, neighborhoods, school, and class, not an artificial and boutique variant of the university, the media, or entertainment.

Also, when one by act and deed demonstrates more comfortability with one's own tribe, that de facto apartheid can be hard to turn on and off. In contrast, a white truck driver who lives with Mexican Americans, or a Mexican-American carpenter who lives in a working-class neighborhood of whites, realizes there are consequences to racialist slurs. And they are not confined to Twitter virtue-signaling or Internet mobbing but often are muscular and can be dangerous.

I have found race, class, and gender tensions far greater at Stanford University than in San Joaquin Valley rural communities, where difference is incidental and not so essential to one's person. Perhaps the reason is that people share a lower middle-class existence, or that muscular work tends to outweigh rhetoric and abstraction. When one works and lives alongside someone of a different appearance, there is no need or time or affluence to create a façade of identity politics.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-15 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Typical Corky, attacking the source. Quelle surprise.

What's next, an aged Atlantic article about racism being the reason that Hillary wasn't elected?

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-15 03:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- attacking the source

The source is extremely biased, I pointed it out.

And I also pointed out how his premise is false and his generalization nonsensical. Compared to rwingers, much fewer liberals "turn out to be racist and sexist".

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 03:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"the entire 21st-century obsession with race"

Just what a racist would say about people who dare to address the real problems of racism, past and present, in this country.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Big difference between liberals and conservatives, liberal women are encouraged to report even if it hurts their political party while conservatives are not encouraged to report if it is likely to harm their political party.

Interesting that you mention that:

What exempted progressives such as Harvey Weinstein or Eric Schneiderman from an accounting years ago was likely progressive cost-benefit considerations -- or perhaps even more disturbing rationales.

Was the reprehensible treatment of victimized women felt to be a small price to pay to protect high-profile progressives who were on the front lines of social justice? And did Weinstein and Schneiderman bake such calculations into their behavior?

Could not a few women be sacrificed on the altar of progressivism to allow far more to be helped?

A cynic would conclude that once deterrence is lost and perpetrators have no fear of career or legal consequences, they feel justified in doing as they please and therefore can double down on their crudity.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-15 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"the entire 21st-century obsession with race"
Just what a racist would say about people who dare to address the real problems of racism, past and present, in this country.
#8 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2018-05-15 03:12 PM

Let's look at the whole quote, shall we:

"One of the great ironies of the entire 21st-century obsession with race is the fact that supposedly racist lower-middle-class whites are often more likely than gentry whites to live among non-whites."

What about this statement is racist, exactly? It seems to me that the author is saying that the elitists on the coasts are less likely to live among non-whites then lower middle class whites are, which is a true statement.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-15 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Going back to #1. Each person on that list admittedly lived in a liberal bubble and had preconceived and extremely negative opinions (caricatures) of conservatives. Each person on that list, for their own different reasons, found themselves in a position where they had to closely engage with, and get to know, conservative people on a daily basis. They all reached the same general conclusion: This conservative people who they'd grown accustomed to despise turned out to be really nice, thoughtful and engaging people.

Certain people on this site seem to fit the mold of living in a liberal bubble, with such an intensely negative and hostile view of conservatives that is built on insipid stereotypes. These people would do well to do what Kohn, Powers and Stern did. It would both be illuminating and humbling.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-15 03:35 PM | Reply

"Compared to rwingers, much fewer liberals "turn out to be racist and sexist".." #7 | POSTED BY CORKY

Fake Liberal cries wahataboutism and otherism in every post then uses it when convenient.
All while attacking the messenger; which, when used against him, usually brings the retort, "in lieu of argument".
And finally in #8 tries to flip the script, "Just what a racist would say"

#intellectualmidget

#12 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-15 03:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Everyone in Buffalo is a Democrat. Everyone in Buffalo is a racist.
In the burbs, everyone is a republican. Everyone in the burbs is racist.

Blue collar dems are the biggest racists known to man, outside all Hispanics and all Asians.

#13 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-05-15 03:39 PM | Reply

"How else could Donald Trump gain the majority of white women voting in this country when we all knew he bragged about sexually assaulting women?"

people disliked Hillary that much.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-15 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- What about this statement is racist, exactly?

It's a "well, duh" statement... and it's meaningless to his false premise and his inane generalization.

- living in a liberal bubble

See, the thing is, in a liberal bubble there at least is science, facts, journalism, civics, societal concerns... other people in the country and the world that matter other than one's self.

In the rwing bubble, if you don't like a fact, it doesn't exist, science is biased towards the left, journalism is about perception and bias, not reality, civics? what's that? and, as Ayn Rand said, other people don't matter.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag: irony alert! complains about "inane generalization" while posting that.

don't get me wrong....I think conservatives are guilty of a lot of what they are accused of.....but I love threads where corky/Danni/drunkeninjun feel compelled to show up and defend liberals.

why?

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-15 03:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

14
It's odd that it needs to be repeated so often. How are people still unaware of the fact?

#17 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-05-15 03:54 PM | Reply

#16

I was speaking, twice, about the biased rwing article author's false premise, then his generalization of it to the entire progressive movement.

As you admit, my premise wasn't false.

-defend liberals.

Sometimes I think that people who pretend to always be the objective non-partisan wishy washy fence sitting third party referee on these threads.... because that means they don't have to defend any hard choices in policy for the country... are more laughable than the rwingers. Sometimes.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 03:56 PM | Reply

#15 | POSTED BY CORKY

That is the very broad-brushed caricature that I'm talking about.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-15 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's a "well, duh" statement...

So it's not racist. Glad we could clear that up.

and it's meaningless to his false premise

How is the premise false, exactly?

and his inane generalization.

Sayeth the King of inane generalization.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-15 03:58 PM | Reply

Wow so even sexual misconduct/assault needs to be viewed through a partisan lens?

Why not just agree that it evidence is compelling enough they should all be shown the door?

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2018-05-15 03:58 PM | Reply

#19

I notice that you don't dispute it, however. Also that you support he very broad-brushed caricature of the guy who wrote, "Donald Trump, Tragic Hero"... with no hesitancy at all.

Kinda like that article you posted saying that it was objective when it most obviously was not.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why not just agree that it evidence is compelling enough they should all be shown the door?

Agreed 100%

Danni, however, decided to make a partisan point of it so I quoted the article in response.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-15 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- How is the premise false, exactly?

How many times do you need it repeated? Twice is not enough?

A generalization made upon a false premise is called a faulty generalization; a logical fallacy.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 04:02 PM | Reply

"objective non-partisan wishy washy fence sitting third party referee on these threads.... "

I know that rubs you wrong...you don't understand it. You think everybody should jump off the fence and take a side.

I find both sides to be so flawed that I can't, in good conscience, choose a side on many issues.

But perhaps you're asleep when I jump off and take a side, apparently.

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-15 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#5

That's a nice unverifiable anecdote you've got there, Clyde.

#26 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-05-15 04:06 PM | Reply

- I can't, in good conscience, choose a side on many issues

Because that would be hard. And then someone might hold you responsible for it.

- when I jump off and take a side

That happens so infrequently as to be easy to miss.

.

What's tiring and trite is obviously biased rwing articles presented around here as being objective journalism.

They are not.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 04:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 5

"I find both sides to be so flawed that I can't, in good conscience, choose a side on many issues."

It's intentional: Evil or Less Evil are the only choices provided.
Then you're verbally assaulted by the Less Evil crowd, because you don't play their little game.
You'll also be blamed for allowing Evil to prevail, because your're a 'racist-nazi-Pooty-humper'.
Again, because of the false choice presented: Pick Your Shade of Evil

#28 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-15 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"...articles presented around here as being objective journalism." #27 | POSTED BY CORKY

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

#29 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-15 04:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

No one, least of all progressives, ever sought to pretend that racism, sexism, homophobia and the like were confined to one area of society or another. Indeed, it is progressives who get castigated on this forum as hysterical alarmists for pointing out the eaxact opposite.

As the OP clearly (and unintentionally) shows, it is conservatives who want to cover up the extent of the problem (so that it's recognition does not impede their cynical policy objectives).

#30 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-05-15 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Because that would be hard"

Being the piñata you are here everyday?

yeah...I don't see the point. What's the cause? Who would I do that for?

It's not hard for you, though....instead...it's simple. just run left everytime. good boy.

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-15 04:17 PM | Reply

The truth is that I find the article to be biased and slanted as well.

Oops!! Corky is prolly upset that I jumped on the fence there again.

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-15 04:21 PM | Reply

"confined to one area of society or another."

what does that mean? one area of society or another? you mean conservative vs liberal? GOP vs dem?

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-15 04:23 PM | Reply

Here's your "progressive insensitivity" on full display - www.latimes.com

"Liberals" LOL

#34 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-15 04:27 PM | Reply

what does that mean? one area of society or another? you mean conservative vs liberal? GOP vs dem?

#33 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-05-15 04:23 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I mean the areas that the article talks about: academia and Hollywood versus the world of this racially harmonious working class that the author seems to envision.

#35 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-05-15 04:34 PM | Reply

I notice that you don't dispute it, however. Also that you support he very broad-brushed caricature of the guy who wrote, "Donald Trump, Tragic Hero"... with no hesitancy at all.

I do dispute it. Which broad-brushed caricature are you referring to.

Kinda like that article you posted saying that it was objective when it most obviously was not.
#22 | POSTED BY CORKY

I didn't characterize that article as objective.

This is a reproduction of the post you are referring to:

The linked interview is a somewhat long read but very worth it IMO. I found it to be very informative and, in spite of the headline, this isn't partisan.
#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-05-02 01:35 PM

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-15 04:36 PM | Reply

"In the last 30 years, we've seen the growth of an entire new class of bicoastal gentrified urban elites who are ostensibly -- on matters of race, class, and sex -- hyper-progressive. But are they really?"

I don't think they are hyper-progressive but I believe a minority of them who live online create that perception.

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-15 04:37 PM | Reply

I would never characterize a piece by Victor Davis Hanson as unbiased.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-15 04:38 PM | Reply

35

makes sense. Thanks.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-15 04:42 PM | Reply

14
It's odd that it needs to be repeated so often. How are people still unaware of the fact?
#17 | Posted by 101Chairborne

because it is incredible that people actually cut their own nose off to spite hillary

#40 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-15 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"because it is incredible that people actually cut their own nose off to spite Hillary"

but it's true.

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-15 05:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A generalization made upon a false premise is called a faulty generalization; a logical fallacy.

Thank you for a partial example of circular reasoning in response to a fairly simple question, why don't you use your words and apply it to the article.

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-15 05:20 PM | Reply

- I didn't characterize that article as objective.
- this isn't partisan.

A distinction without a difference.

- why don't you use your words

I did, twice. You just don't want to understand them. Which is obvious because you've read them, but haven't argued them. Some lawyer.

- The truth is that I find the article to be biased and slanted as well.
- but it's true.

"Good boy!" There may be hope for you yet!

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 06:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Retarded thread started by predictable douche-nozzle.

#44 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-05-15 06:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#44

Translation: "Holding the mirror up to my inadequacies is why I am so ANGRY!!!"

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-15 06:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

I did, twice. You just don't want to understand them. Which is obvious because you've read them, but haven't argued them.

What you said was "Compared to rwingers, much fewer liberals "turn out to be racist and sexist"."

That subsumes that, as Hansen points out, that there are numerous liberals that are both racist and sexist, which does not make his premise false other than in your "whataboutism" (to use the latest proggie favorite word) exercise.

When taken in context with the numerous racist and sexist quotes in the article itself, his premise is not only valid but supported.

Your inane generalization, as others have pointed out along with me, is just that.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-15 07:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

"Why do so many famous social-justice crusaders turn out to be racist and sexist?"

My money's on: The same reason so many people who aren't social justice crusaders turn out to be racist and sexist.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-15 10:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's global: EU threatens 'illiberal' nation states

#48 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-15 11:23 PM | Reply

just run left everytime. good boy.

#31 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Patience Grasshopper.

Three lefts make a right.

#49 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-05-15 11:33 PM | Reply

All right thinking people know that conservatives are the worst, racist, homophobic, misogynistic etc., progressives are paragons by comparison. So there's no need for reflection, introspection or self-examination if you are progressive.

#50 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-05-16 08:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Compared to rwingers, much fewer liberals "turn out to be racist and sexist".... #3 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 02:54 PM
Citation? Or are you just making stuff up again?
Sad.

#51 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-16 09:57 AM | Reply

liberal women are encouraged to report even if it hurts their political party while conservatives are not encouraged to report if it is likely to harm their political party.
How else could Donald Trump gain the majority of white women voting in this country when we all knew he bragged about sexually assaulting women? - #4 | Posted by Danni at 2018-05-15 02:55 PM |

Do you have any proof for that? Who do you think is encouraging liberal women to report and NOT encouraging conservative women? Please do show where you're getting the false notion that someone is calling for liberal women, but not all women, to report their victimizations.
As to your question: I suppose that they thought that the alternative was worse.

#52 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-16 10:00 AM | Reply

See, the thing is, in a liberal bubble there at least is science, facts, journalism, civics, societal concerns... other people in the country and the world that matter other than one's self.
In the rwing bubble, if you don't like a fact, it doesn't exist, science is biased towards the left, journalism is about perception and bias, not reality, civics? what's that? and, as Ayn Rand said, other people don't matter.
- #15 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-15 03:47 PM

Spoken like someone ignorant of people in the country and being prejudiced based on that ignorance. At least you're proudly ignorant, which seems to be a pretty consistent stance for someone existing in a bubble.

#53 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-16 10:06 AM | Reply

because it is incredible that people actually cut their own nose off to spite Hillary voted their conscience.- #40 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-15 05:05 PM

#54 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-16 10:13 AM | Reply

54

how do you cross through words like that?

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-16 10:21 AM | Reply

I probably had a lower opinion of Hillary that most Trump voters....but that didn't stop me from objectively assessing Trump as a candidate.....and Hillary was still better, IMO.

Good enough? no way...and I HATE the idea of voting for lesser of 2 evils because I'm still voting for "evil".

but I won't trash anybody who wouldn't vote for Hillary especially liberals who couldn't stand her.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-16 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

but I won't trash anybody who wouldn't vote for Hillary especially liberals who couldn't stand her.

POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-05-16 10:27 AM | REPLY

Thank You for that.

#57 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-05-16 10:34 AM | Reply

but I won't trash anybody who wouldn't vote for Hillary especially liberals who couldn't stand her.
POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-05-16 10:27 AM

Same here. I don't begrudge anyone for who they vote for, or whether they vote at all.

I understand the pragmatic, lesser of two evils vote.

I also understand voting for the best overall candidate regardless of their chances of winning.

I understand choosing not to vote.

This is why we have a private ballot - voting is an intensely personal thing and everyone has a different set of priorities.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-16 10:55 AM | Reply

"I also understand voting for the best overall candidate regardless of their chances of winning.

I understand choosing not to vote."

I'm not sure you understand doing the first for a third party candidate results in the same winner as doing the second.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-16 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm not sure you understand doing the first for a third party candidate results in the same winner as doing the second."

I think most 3rd party voters know this.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-16 12:56 PM | Reply

They've never said as much, which is why I don't think they know.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-16 01:01 PM | Reply

- everyone has a different set of priorities.

Yes, some are ego-driven; putting their "favorite" or their own highly valued opinion first... while some are driven by a rational choice considering the resulting effect of their vote for the country as a whole, not just themselves or their ego.

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-16 01:13 PM | Reply

"I'm not sure you understand doing the first for a third party candidate results in the same winner as doing the second."

I think most 3rd party voters know this.

#60 | POSTED BY EBERLY

It's sad that you felt compelled to state the obvious. That's not a knock on you, BTW.

Yes, some are conscience-driven; putting their "favorite" or their own highly valued moral compass first... while some are driven by a Partisan choice considering the resulting effect of their vote for their party as a whole, not just themselves or their conscience.
#62 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2018-05-16 01:13 PM

FTFY

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-16 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#63

You are prevaricating, not fixing.

If your conscience tells you that your vote is merely a personal choice reflecting your own glorious opinion and personal favorite candidate... and that it does not represent a civic duty to act in way that results in the best policies for the country rather than you own abstract personal preferences.... then you should stop listening to that selfish idiot.

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-16 01:59 PM | Reply

how do you cross through words like that? - #55 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-16 10:21 AM

strike and /strike

#65 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-16 02:12 PM | Reply

If your conscience tells you that your vote is merely a personal choice reflecting your own glorious opinion and personal favorite candidate... and that it does not represent a civic duty to act in way that results in the best policies for the country rather than you own abstract personal preferences.... then you should stop listening to that selfish idiot. -#64 | Posted by Corky at 2018-05-16 01:59 PM

The fault in your theory is that you have to assume that you know how the vote is going to turn out. You don't.
Since you don't know how the vote will turn out, how can you possibly accept voting for anyone other than the candidate that best represents you in this representative democracy?
What if the best candidate had missed her chance to win the election because you voted 'lesser evil'?
We all know now that Clinton had no chance to win the last election. A vote for her had no more value than a vote for Stein or Johnson. However, the people who voted their conscience can rest easy in the knowledge that they didn't betray themselves by voting for 'evil', lesser or not.

#66 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-16 02:24 PM | Reply

"while some are driven by a Partisan choice considering the resulting effect of their vote for their party as a whole, not just themselves or their conscience."

Reviewing the history of the U.S. for my entire life a voter could have done exactly what you say Jeff, they could have voted Democrat in every single election and been right 100% of the time. What has the Republican party ever done for any working class American? Absolutely nothing. I'm not recommending that to be the best way to make decisions on who to vote for but just saying it's still better than ever voting Republican.

#67 | Posted by danni at 2018-05-16 02:25 PM | Reply

"but I won't trash anybody who wouldn't vote for Hillary especially liberals who couldn't stand her."

Nor would you trash liberals who did vote for, I assume, as some here are so fond of doing?

#68 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-05-16 03:23 PM | Reply

Nor would you trash liberals who did vote for, I assume, as some here are so fond of doing?

#68 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

I certainly don't.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-16 03:25 PM | Reply

".... or that muscular work tends to outweigh rhetoric and abstraction. When one works and lives alongside someone of a different appearance, there is no need or time or affluence to create a façade of identity politics..."

This is true.

Being the only non-hispanic white driver in my domicile, I've lived and experienced this for years now. In my experience of the working blue-collar world, across the board, there is more of an earthiness, indifference, and even a camradaerie that doesn't seem to be in the upper management echelons.

#70 | Posted by shane at 2018-05-16 03:30 PM | Reply

68

no. I voted for her as well.

#71 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-16 03:34 PM | Reply

#69 & 71 That's what makes you two different from most of the rest of us then.

#72 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-05-16 03:37 PM | Reply

"Do you have any proof for that?"

This is TrumpLandia.

Why on Earth would we need proof?

If we believe it then it must be true.

That's the way it works now isn't it?

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-05-16 05:11 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort