BREAKING! Wealthy Union-Busting White Publisher Willing To Take His Chances With Donald Trump

Over the past few years, Rick MacAruthur has been publishing anti-Democratic screeds with a notable lack of quality control. This has led to a logical conclusion:

But my wife’s question wasn’t about Hillary per se. It was about Hillary as the last rampart against the vicious vulgarity of Donald Trump. If ever there were a moral case for choosing the lesser of two evils, wasn’t this it? My answer is no.

If the primary issue you see with a Republican taking over the White House is “vulgarity,” this is what you call “privilege.” To back up a bit:

Sanders partly had himself to blame. Despite his denunciation of Wall Street chicanery and factory jobs lost to China and Mexico, the insurgent senator from Vermont has repeatedly failed to be specific, tactically flexible or appropriately critical of Hillary’s profound dishonesty. Beginning last October, when he gave her a pass on her use of private emails while employed in her public position as Secretary of State (‘the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails’), the self-proclaimed socialist insisted on placing politeness and decorum above strategic intelligence.

Yes, if only Sanders had viciously attacked Hillary Clinton throughout the race, with particular attention to the email faux-scandal, he would be the presumptive Democratic nominee. You know, I’m beginning to think that people who thoroughly despise the Democratic Party may not be the best-positioned to provide advice about how to assemble majority coalitions of Democrats.

No friend of labour, Trump benefits from the Clintons’ reliance on Wall Street cash and works it to his advantage

“Friend of labour” is a place MacArthur really, really doesn’t want to go.

Of course I won’t vote for Donald Trump. He’s a wolf in wolf’s clothing. But all around me I hear liberal sheep rustling in the fields, preparing to rationalise their vote for Hillary. I’d rather spoil my ballot by writing in ‘Jeremy Corbyn’ — and take my chances with the wolf.

Congratulations! So principled! After all, you won’t be prevented from obtaining an abortion, or denied access to health care, or be affected by non-enforcement of civil rights laws. And you’ll actually materially benefit from Republican tax policies and a Republican-controlled NLRB. But so noble of you to be willing to have horrible things happen to other people in order to congratulate yourself for being the Leftiest Lefty Who Ever Lefted (just don’t ask my employees!)

While we’re here, I really love the fact that the latest random guy Salon has commissioned to put his name on the same “Bernie or bust” article is actually named “Brogan Morris.” I assume that this is like “Nanker Phlege,” a pseudonym representing a collective effort from HA! Goodman, Walker Bragman, and Matt Stoller? Anyway, most of this is dumb arguments that have been made equally badly elsewhere, but I do admire how boldly he’s repurposed Sarah Palin’s theory of the First Amendment to voting:

In reality, these supporters have every right to say “Bernie or Bust.”

Firstly, and obviously, they do literally have the right. The right to vote is not also an obligation to vote, despite what some may say. The core principle of democracy is freedom of choice, in who you vote for, and in whether you decide to vote at all. (Just as a side-note, voting numbers have been going down for a long time. It’s not like we can exclusively berate Bernie or Busters for refusing to vote Democrat when for years voters have increasingly been too disillusioned to turn out for either side.)

Yes, indeed, you have the inalienable right to not vote or to vote irrationally, and other people have the inalienable right to make fun of you when your stated public reasons for not voting or voting irrationally are massively stupid. That’s democracy! As for the idea that vote turnout is on an inexorable downward trend, not really so much.

And now, the punchline:

To voters on a national level, and certainly to Bernie or Busters, Clinton vs. Trump is very much a Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich scenario (thankyou, “South Park”).

Yep, nothing establishes your cred as a leftier-than-thou, and thou, and especially thou than quoting Parker and Stone. Cool story, Brogressive!

…in fairness to Brogan, it could be worse — he could be Camille Paglia. Some lowlights from her latest excretion (no link):

Given that most people, sequestered at their workplace, were unable to monitor the full range of responses throughout the day, the candidate who emerged on top was almost certainly Donald Trump. Despite his alarming enthusiasm for waterboarding and torture, Trump’s central campaign theme of securing the borders and more stringently vetting immigrants was strengthened by the events in Brussels, a historic city whose changing demographics he had already controversially warned about. Trump’s credibility would be enhanced if he treated the vital immigration issue in general policy terms rather than divisively singling out specific groups (Mexican, Muslim), the majority of whom are manifestly law-abiding.

[…]

I will never cast my vote for a corrupt and incompetent candidate whose every policy is poll-tested in advance. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will write in Sanders or vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party, as I did in 2012 as a protest against Obama’s unethical use of drones and the racially divisive tone of his administration.

[…]

But a Trump-Hillary death match will be a national nightmare, a race to the bottom for both parties, as Democratic and Republican operatives compete to dig up the most lurid and salacious dirt on both flawed candidates. We’ll be sadistically trapped in an endless film noir, with Trump as Citizen Kane, Don Corleone and Scarface and Hillary as Norma Desmond, Mommie Dearest and the Wicked Witch of the West.