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