# CBS reflects on its complicity in Clinton's loss **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 11, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503 "2016-11-11T15:05:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/121 "2016-11-14T02:41:11Z")
I think that on one of the Voter ID cases (perhaps in Texas) one lawyer made the statement that the law wasn’t intended to discriminate against blacks but against Democrats, which would be perfectly legal. And, no, I can’t cite it but I do remember thinking that is was pretty repugnant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/122 "2016-11-14T03:11:45Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > I think that on one of the Voter ID cases (perhaps in Texas) one lawyer made the statement that the law wasn’t intended to discriminate against blacks but against Democrats, which would be perfectly legal. > > And, no, I can’t cite it but I do remember thinking that is was pretty repugnant. What kind of thoughts go through your head when you read about gerrymandering? You [must know that things like this happen, right?](http://www.anthropocon.com/another-key-democrat-is-vulnerable-in-2012/) This is a law intended to discriminate against Republicans. Right? How repugnant is this? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/123 "2016-11-14T03:54:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What kind of thoughts go through your head when you read about gerrymandering? > > You [must know that things like this happen, right?](http://www.anthropocon.com/another-key-democrat-is-vulnerable-in-2012/) > > This is a law intended to discriminate against Republicans. > > Right? > > How repugnant is this? Two points. (1) You seem to imply that gerrymandering (reassigning voters from one district to another) is just as repugnant as suppressing voters altogether (or effectively suppressing them by deliberate design of partisan obstacles). This is the first I’ve ever heard of that. For one thing, gerrymandering is a gamble — your own cite shows that an alleged gerrymandering may backfire. Voter suppression programs like Crosscheck, OTOH, are designed to prevent likely Democratic voters from voting _at all_. (2) Even if one stipulates that the alleged gerrymander you cite rises up to the level of GOP malfeasance we’ve become so sick of, you seem unable to cope with simple arithmetic. If your post means anything at all, it means “Nanner, nanner, you come up with 50 instances of GOP mischief, and all I need is one Democratic instance to refute it! _Your side does it too_. Quantity doesn’t matter. Nanner nanner nanner!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/124 "2016-11-14T04:40:05Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Two points. > > (1) You seem to imply that gerrymandering (reassigning voters from one district to another) is just as repugnant as suppressing voters altogether (or effectively suppressing them by deliberate design of partisan obstacles). This is the first I’ve ever heard of that. For one thing, gerrymandering is a gamble — your own cite shows that an alleged gerrymandering may backfire. Voter suppression programs like Crosscheck, OTOH, are designed to prevent likely Democratic voters from voting _at all_. > > (2) Even if one stipulates that the alleged gerrymander you cite rises up to the level of GOP malfeasance we’ve become so sick of, you seem unable to cope with simple arithmetic. If your post means anything at all, it means “Nanner, nanner, you come up with 50 instances of GOP mischief, and all I need is one Democratic instance to refute it! _Your side does it too_. Quantity doesn’t matter. Nanner nanner nanner!” Mocking again. No other participants have anything to say about this, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/125 "2016-11-14T04:44:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Mocking again. > > No other participants have anything to say about this, huh? Your argument is rancid pigshit on a plate. Does that satisfy your need of corroboration? Gerrymandering is shitty. The only party looking to get rid of it is the dems. They do it to, of course. But because of the wave of 2010, the GOP did it shamelessly and got a persistent lock for a decade. Gerrymandering isn’t the same thing as keeping people from voting. It’s surprising you don’t understand that. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/126 "2016-11-14T05:00:11Z")
It should also be noted that over the past ten years, owing to increasingly sophisticated computer programs, gerrymandering is now more science than the art form which was the case previously. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/127 "2016-11-14T05:33:32Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > (2) Even if one stipulates that the alleged gerrymander you cite rises up to the level of GOP malfeasance we’ve become so sick of, you seem unable to cope with simple arithmetic. If your post means anything at all, it means “Nanner, nanner, you come up with 50 instances of GOP mischief, and all I need is one Democratic instance to refute it! _Your side does it too_. Quantity doesn’t matter. Nanner nanner nanner!” Please keep discussion civil. Denigrating a person’s arithmetic skills in this fashion is bordering on personal attacks. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/128 "2016-11-14T06:09:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Mocking again. > > No other participants have anything to say about this, > huh? While it apparently crosses the line in this forum, the fact that he is mocking has no bearing on whether he is correct. If it did, then the fact that you have mocked **septimus** for his lack of legal knowledge would have made you wrong. I’m sure we all agree that is not the case. His response still works without the mocking: No, gerrymandering is not as bad, since it has an actual built in failure point. But, even if we treat it as just as bad, the problem is that it still fails as a _tu quoque_. The entire country is gerrymandered for Republicans, making it where we need more than a majority of each to get a majority in the House and Senate. You can’t _tu quoque_ a single instance against 50. My response goes further: _tu quoque_ arguments are invalid on their face. No, it doesn’t make you wrong, but it does mean that the argument can continue as if the _tu quoque_ was never uttered. Hence why I would not be surprised that people have no response. I mean, what if **E-DUB** doesn’t think it’s as bad?. What does that do to his argument? It just winds up with an _ad hominem_: you’re a hypocrite, so what you say is wrong. That is not a refutation. Bringing up any time the Democrats have done something wrong will never in any way refute that that thing is wrong, any more than one of us bringing up that Republicans doing something proves that it is actually wrong. Of course Gerrymandering is wrong. And of course Voter ID laws designed to disenfranchise is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/129 "2016-11-14T06:13:24Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > This is such a good point. As has happened so often, many Trump voters–perhaps most of them–were voting against their own economic interests. Post snipped. Actually, I suspect for a good number of middle class/blue collar folks the idea that the voted against their own self interest is false. This is why. The middle class has been getting squeezed for years. Both parties say that they are going to help the middle class. The Democrats had the last eight years and things for the middle class really haven’t gotten much better. Clinton and the Democrats toss some stuff out about helping the middle class were more vocal about issues that don’t really affect them. Clinton offered free in state tuition. Great but it doesn’t help get the mortgage paid. Clinton wanted to raise the minimum wage. If you are making 20 bucks an hour, that doesn’t mean shit and can actually hurt your finances. Clinton said she wanted to make all the illegal aliens citizens. Great, more competition for jobs if you are on the lower end of the pay scale. Trump hit the bring back jobs hard. Is he full of shit? Probably but Trump spoke about something that would have a direct positive impact on their lives. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/130 "2016-11-14T09:28:09Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > many Trump voters … were voting against their own economic interests. Many were voting for Trump because they think they have nothing to lose. America has failed them and those in power ignore them. So they don’t care if the whole thing comes crashing down - they’ll think they’ll be no worse off. I would disagree, but I’m not the person on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/131 "2016-11-14T10:02:10Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Stop nominating bigger liars who refuse to even adress the concerns of misinformed people, but instead denigrate them as Clinton did. …Are you seriously implying that Clinton is the “bigger liar”? > [@sleestak](#): > > Post snipped. > > Actually, I suspect for a good number of middle class/blue collar folks the idea that the voted against their own self interest is false. > > This is why. > > The middle class has been getting squeezed for years. Both parties say that they are going to help the middle class. The Democrats had the last eight years and things for the middle class really haven’t gotten much better. > > Clinton and the Democrats toss some stuff out about helping the middle class were more vocal about issues that don’t really affect them. Clinton offered free in state tuition. Great but it doesn’t help get the mortgage paid. Clinton wanted to raise the minimum wage. If you are making 20 bucks an hour, that doesn’t mean shit and can actually hurt your finances. Clinton said she wanted to make all the illegal aliens citizens. Great, more competition for jobs if you are on the lower end of the pay scale. > > Trump hit the bring back jobs hard. Is he full of shit? Probably but Trump spoke about something that would have a direct positive impact on their lives. > > Slee Speaking of full of shit: the claims that: [ol] [li]The democrats “had the last eight years”; they didn’t[/li][li]The claim that things haven’t gotten better[/li][li]The implication that things could have gotten much better than they said they would[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/132 "2016-11-14T10:38:43Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > And you still don’t get it. Pity. > > The masses do listen to Progressives, it’s the establishment Democrats who don’t. You think because Hillary’s message didn’t resonate that people don’t hear the progressive message. You’ve got that backward: **Hillary isn’t a god damn Progressive! She’s a Right-Wing neoliberal with an elite isider problem!** > > This attitude will be the death of the Democratic Party. Good riddance, I say. I don’t know which of those perceptions angers me more, but I know the more damaging one is “[the masses] listen to Progressives”. But I’ll respond to the whole stinkin’ post. First: You might have a point that ‘establishment’ Democrats don’t listen as closely as you’d prefer to progressives -oh, excuse me capital “P” Progressives- but only if you really narrow your definition of progressivism to some sort of ideological purity level. Which indicates all by itself a poor understanding of progressivism. It’s like Christians who latch onto Leviticus but gloss over everything in the New Testament except for the “whosoever believes” part. Progressivism isn’t supposed to be some exclusive club of pure beliefs. Second: I don’t believe, and did not assert, that rural voters don’t hear ‘the progressive message’ because Hillary’s message didn’t resonate. In fact, when small sample group rural GOP voters are given progressive policy proposals without the ‘liberal’ label and without political party ownership assigned, those proposals do tend to resonate. Because they don’t boil down to government giveaways to lazy brown people and government confiscation of hard earned wages, which is what they ‘know’ those liberals are all about. I asserted that Hillary’s message didn’t resonate with those voters because they never heard it. Hillary’s mouth was moving, so they “knew” what she was saying. Giveaways to immigrants and higher taxes. Because she’s the Hill-beast, Killery Klinton the corrupt schemer, as the network news and their nice local representative kept reminding them. (And even that nice visiting Progressive lady who for some reason loved the Jew socialist, but she’s so nice anyway you can’t blame her she’s “city” folk, anyway even _she_ knows about that bitch Hillary…) Third: Describing Hillary Clinton as “right wing” anything is divorced from objective reality. Even if it’s put in bold font. If Bernie Sanders supporters had any effect on HRC supporters during the primaries, it wasn’t to drive us away from Bernie because of all your insults and false charges of cheating (yeah, the Sanders supporters -and note, I don’t say “surrogates” because it would be stupid to assign responsibility to Sanders for everything any Sanders booster said- gave as good as they got). Your effect by that sort of rhetoric was to reinforce any worries we had that the Sanders message might be coopted in the general to one way too stereotypically leftist for most voters. Elite insiderism is a problem only if you like progressive rhetoric better than you like progressive action. Clinton’s record in the Senate and in public speech shows center-left to left political preferences and a propensity to make deals to achieve progress. She compromises. Because -another spoiler alert here!- that’s a good thing in a democracy. You don’t like her, I get that. Lots of her supporters don’t like her general demeanor and are not sanguine about her coziness with the power structure. But we see the benefit of that coziness, because that’s how deals get made, and, one more time, deals are how progress happens in a democracy. _That’s_ progressivism. Fourth and Final: I’m not going to blame the poor Democratic turnout on Bernie boosters who stayed home. There’s not that many who did; most Sanders supporters voted as Democrats when they voted, and I believe most who were active in supporting Sanders actually cast ballots. But I will blame your anti-Clinton rhetoric for helping to solidify that distaste for the straw Hillary that depressed enthusiasm among the generally Dem leaning non political junkies. Just enough of _those_ usually Democratic voters stayed away from the polls that it allowed the narcissistic con man to win the White House. So thanks very much for your progressive passion. Wonderful progress you’re achieving. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/133 "2016-11-14T12:21:00Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > I disagree with you and agree with Bricker. Yes, Hell has frozen over. > > The Democratic Party ran a despicable campaign of no policy and all insults that started with eviscerating Bernie Sanders supporters. > > _Her_ campaign called us sexists, misogynists, Communists, violent, basement dwellers who weren’t “real” Democrats. Her surrogates relegated us to Hell for not supporting her, and said we were only with Bernie for the boys, and only wanted “free stuff.” We were all white, twenty-something “Bros” who hate strong women. > > Her _supporters_ called us swamp donkeys, thugs, assholes, twats, pussyface, retarded cunts, sag tits, spoiled Jew brats, mutts and douche bags. We were asked if we could use the bathroom on our own, how it feels to be an old troll, were told to fuck off, go to Hell and they didn’t need or want our votes. I have documented evidence of every single thing here, so feel free to challenge me if you want. > > And the only candidate who was scolded like a five-year-old to rein in his “violent” supporters by the complicit, partisan DNC was Bernie Sanders. They even forced him to denounce made-up violence that **never happened**. > > She got exactly what she deserved for looking down her nose at the very voters she’d need to become president. Including disaffected Republicans who flocked to Bernie in droves during the primaries, but whom they were willing to concede because they arrogantly thought they had a blue firewall and didn’t need to appeal to us plebes. > > Baskets full of deplorables and Bernie Bros took her down. But she and her supporters are still unwilling to do a damn bit of self reflection. > > Good luck in 2018 with that attitude. Funny how the Trump supporters are coming out of the woodwork now. You know, those people who were too ashamed or afraid to say that they were going to vote for him before. My, my, how things have changed. So tell me, when was the last time in history that the FBI publicly and directly interfered in an election on the side of one particular candidate? Or that that candidate was so foul-mouthed and truth-free in his pronouncements? How in the fuck can you call out Hillary’s campaign for their insults to you when Trump lived and breathed it at every rally? Let’s talk about hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/134 "2016-11-14T12:24:18Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > I get the idea that it’s not necessarily smart to call people stupid, even if the pointy hat fits. > > I was listening to a Trump voter interviewed today on NPR (yeah, I know) and he expressed that one of his prime concerns was illegal immigration. The interviewer pointed out that deportations had increased under Obama. The guy says, “Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t…” > > How do we get through the the fact-resistant folks who cast _real_ votes with _real_ consequences based on half-truths, distortions, and downright lies? You don’t without a wrenching change in their lives. It just _is not possible_. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/135 "2016-11-14T12:39:43Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Funny how the Trump supporters are coming out of the woodwork now. You know, those people who were too ashamed or afraid to say that they were going to vote for him before. My, my, how things have changed. > > So tell me, when was the last time in history that the FBI publicly and directly interfered in an election on the side of one particular candidate? Or that that candidate was so foul-mouthed and truth-free in his pronouncements? > > How in the fuck can you call out Hillary’s campaign for their insults to you when Trump lived and breathed it at every rally? Let’s talk about hypocrisy. I certainly can’t speak for **Shayna** and doubt she’d ever want me to. But I don’t believe that her post signaled that she was a Trump advocate. I gathered from her post that she was suggesting that voters who were generally loyal to the Democratic party – and were enthusiastic Bernie Sanders supporters – were subject to such withering attacks from the Clinton supporters that it was hard to get motivated to work on her behalf or turn out to vote for her. She wasn’t saying Trump was better – she was (IMO correctly) pointing out that Clinton failed to inspire what should have been a solid core of voters for her. The fact that Trump was a worse insulter didn’t enter the argument. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/136 "2016-11-14T12:41:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Look, I am horrified that we elected Trump. > > I don’t want to see Democrats elected either. > > I am not trying to steer the Democrats here to help them win. I want to steer them away from the kind of behavior that made lots of voters vote for Trump. That happened. Your denials are unavailing. Article after article has been shared here, from Trump voters, sharing that they were tired of being bullied on social media for conservative beliefs, mocked for conservative feelings, called racists when their critiques of Obama were policy-based. THAT HAPPENED. You may choose to continue denying it as you wish. But lots of voters felt it anyway, notwithstanding your denials. > > That’s a reality. At one time, liberals claimed to occupy a reality-based community. Is that community capable of engaging and addressing that reality? I will never understand how one can say “conservative beliefs” and use that phrase as an excuse for outright immoral bigotry, racism and phobias of every terrible kind. No matter how much you sincerely think that abortion, for example, is a sin, you cannot plausibly use that as an excuse for voting for the hot mess that is Trump. You have to be sharing his horrible antisocial attitudes to vote for that idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/137 "2016-11-14T12:45:34Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > I will never understand how one can say “conservative beliefs” and use that phrase as an excuse for outright immoral bigotry, racism and phobias of every terrible kind. No matter how much you sincerely think that abortion, for example, is a sin, you cannot plausibly use that as an excuse for voting for the hot mess that is Trump. You have to be sharing his horrible antisocial attitudes to vote for that idiot. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Your argument is rancid pigshit on a plate. > > Does that satisfy your need of corroboration? > > Gerrymandering is shitty. The only party looking to get rid of it is the dems. They do it to, of course. But because of the wave of 2010, the GOP did it shamelessly and got a persistent lock for a decade. > > Gerrymandering isn’t the same thing as keeping people from voting. It’s surprising you don’t understand that. It’s an absolute mystery to me why anyone would think that there is any condescending derision directed at anyone here. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/138 "2016-11-14T12:46:59Z")
So, Trump won because he spoke to the middle class with a promise to ‘bring jobs back’…and that was the only thing they listened to? I’m running for office next year, and I intend to use, as my campaign slogan. “Vote for me and I’ll make you unbelievably rich!” Should make me a shoo-in. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/139 "2016-11-14T12:49:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s an absolute mystery to me why anyone would think that there is any condescending derision directed at anyone here. yes, you nailed it. My opinion of Trump voters is ‘condescending derision’, because that is exactly what they deserve. Why should I be conciliatory about such an important vote that you Trump voters completely screwed up? You picked a completely lousy candidate for all the wrong reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503/140 "2016-11-14T12:52:45Z")
Yep, there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you voted for Trump, you are at an absolute minimum complicitous with his elitism, racism, misogyny, narcissism, and mania. It doesn’t matter how you rationalize it, them’s the facts. And that is what is known in the trade as deplorable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-reflects-on-its-complicity-in-clintons-loss/771503.md?page=8)