Your comment is a perfect example of the Valley's intense hatred of any remotely conservative viewpoint that the article is referring to. People have all kinds of reasons for voting for a particular candidate. It doesn't mean they endorse all of their actions or views. In this last election, I suspect that many Trump votes were made simply because they didn't like Hillary, and there were only two choices.

If that comment was an example of "intense hatred", I see that part of the problem is over-reaction.

Great. I'm sure they all had reasons to vote for a man who said "grab them by the pussy." That doesn't make it any less of an endorsement.

95% of liberals (myself included) would have re-voted for Bill Clinton in 2000, if he was allowed to re-run, over Bush. They would have overlooked all of the shit with Monica (a 22 yo intern!) and the other women, because they would have viewed Bush as a worse choice. And I think nearly all of them do not endorse what he did.

This is why I'm glad the D's are cleaning house. Sexual assault shouldn't be partisan. F Bill Clinton. Hilary was absolutely complicit too.

Or maybe those two things aren't everyone's top concerns, especially if they're struggling with the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy, as many people in less prosperous parts of the country seem to be.

But even if you're well fed and feel secure in your future economic prospects, not caring very much about racism and sexism doesn't make you racist or sexist. It seems to me that most Republicans just don't care about those two things nearly as much as they care about other things. If you're surrounded by only white people, racism becomes a very abstract concept, vs if you live in a large multicultural city.

As a party, Democrats really need to start working on understanding the people who don't vote for them, rather than just assuming they're just insane bigots and insulting them as such in the process.

Or people need to understand that when you associate with bigots you'll be labeled as such and whatever granular point you're trying to make gets lost behind that larger point.

See, that's my point, someone doesn't have a job, or prospects, is desperate for some relief on that front, and you seem to be chastising them for not caring about the president's bigotry enough to vote for someone they're convinced won't help them economically. Do you see why they might not feel like their livelihood is a "granular point", but rather "a much larger point" than whatever you care about most?

Both of you are speaking of granular points that ultimately lose to immediate, local concerns. One side says some variant of bigots, the other some variant of coastal elites.

>When you vote for a sexist and racist, don't be surprised when you're thought to be a sexist and racist.

When you vote for someone who appears to be corrupt, don't be surprised when you're thought to be corrupt.

When you vote for someone who appears to be rich, don't be surprised when you're thought to be rich.

When you vote for someone who appears to take a lot of money from Saudi Arabia, don't be surprised when you're thought to take a lot of money from Saudi Arabia.

Are you starting to see how childish that logic is?

To claim that voting for the candidate who actually won the election is controversial is not rational. In my estimation this kind of intolerance is exactly WHY so many people voted for him despite his flaws.

I think it's highly controversial considering how split the country is on the issue. It wouldn't be controversial if say, 80% of the population voted for him. But they didn't. Half the country did, which is precisely why it is controversial.

Is saying I voted for Clinton also controversial?

Apparently

This is sexist talk in Silicon Valley. Be careful.