Candidates woo "no values" voters

'No Values Voters' Looking To Support Most Evil Candidate

Comments

[Alon Levy]

It's funny. However, I like the ONN piece about China's being the world's largest polluter more.

[Julian Elson]

Personally, I didn't like the framing on that one. The idea is that "values" are good, and the antithesis, "no values," is evil. I think that in reality "no values" implies apathy, not willful depravity. Outright evil of the sort the people on the video advocate are still values -- just evil values. Many self-described "values voters" actually *do* hold evil values (albeit perhaps not as blatantly as the ones in the video).

(Yes, yes, I know that I'm taking it all too seriously, but still...)

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I think you're right on the analysis. But that's what makes this piece clip a good satire of the original "values voter" frame. Everyone who votes is a values voter. Yet, certain radical social conservatives have convinced the media to reserve the term for people who share their particular set of values. That's absurd and deserves to be mocked.

[Richard R. Kusaba]

I'm a bit surprised that they aren't calling for a third term for W.

[cfrost]

"Values voters" and their other irritating phrase "family values". As if, because of our godless, subhuman depravity, the rest of us have litters or farrows rather than proper families. At least lately we haven't heard that horseshit inanity "moral majority" with its obscenely arrogant implied slander of the "immoral" minority.

[cfrost]

I'm a bit surprised that they aren't calling for a third term for W.

They are.

[Alon Levy]

As if, because of our godless, subhuman depravity, the rest of us have litters or farrows rather than proper families.

Evangelicals are significantly likelier than secularists to have litter-sized families.

[Bruce]

I predict a massive write-in campaign for Cthulhu. Why settle for the LESSER of two evils?