NY Times Endorsement of Clinton

[a plan comes together]

Far from surprising. But they make a very rational and strong case for her (probably better than the campaign itself has done): http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html

[ender]

That feels like a nearly perfect endorsement.

Except that it will not do much to impact anyone who currently dislikes Clinton because of her hawkish tendencies or because they feel she is too involved in the "system." If anything, it just reinforces the reasons many people dislike her, by articulating the list clearly.

That's not an endorsement people on the fence about Clinton will find compelling.

[vern]

Lol!  I'm sure no one saw this coming!

[Northwestie]

And the counterpoint - why Trump is not qualified:

Monday's editorial:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/why-donald-trump-should-not-be-president.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange&_r=0

Truely food for thought for those who, somehow, are undecided.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.

Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

[a plan comes together]

And the counterpoint - why Trump is not qualified:

Monday's editorial:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/why-donald-trump-should-not-be-president.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange&_r=0

Truely food for thought for those who, somehow, are undecided.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.

Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

Quite honestly - I've now learned it doesn't matter. Rational thought, common decency, facts - none of it means nothing in this election.

[bacchi]

The NYTimes endorsement is not surprising. What is surprising is the Dallas and Cleveland papers endorsing Clinton -- the first Democrat they've endorsed for decades.

[Northwestie]

Even more so the Arizona Republic.

[Nick_Miller]

Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

I hate to be the one to say it, and I realize there are many intelligent Trump supporters, so I'm not slamming anyone specifically but I don't think the majority of Trump supporters, and especially the most vocal ones, would understand half of the words in this paragraph. Seriously.

[MasterStache]

The Cincinnati Enquire as well. They have backed the GOP candidate for nearly a century.

[libertarian4321]

More major newspapers have endorsed Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson than have endorsed Trump.

Today, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html

You know both major party candidates COMPLETELY SUCK when major papers endorse a third party candidate over these clowns.  Most elections, newspapers don't even acknowledge that third parties even exist, let alone endorse their candidates.

Johnson was also endorsed by the Detroit News and several others.

Though I like the quote from the New Hampshire Union Leader the best:

"Don’t waste your vote on candidates who don’t deserve it. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are the only choice for President and Vice President."

[Northwestie]

Yea - the team that thinks Aleppo is a brand of dog food and can't name a foreign leader.   I have to grudgingly say that Sarah Palin might have done better thinking on her feet.

[libertarian4321]

Yea - the team that thinks Aleppo is a brand of dog food and can't name a foreign leader.   I have to grudgingly say that Sarah Palin might have done better thinking on her feet.

You weren't listening. 

The question was not "can you name a foreign leader?" it was "can you name a leader YOU ADMIRE?"

I can name a slew of foreign leaders.  I can't name one "I admire" because, well, other nations tend to be at least as bad as the USA when it comes to picking leaders.

Most are corrupt dictators, and even the "good" European countries, so loved by liberals in the USA, tend to be led by big government socialists. 

Not the kind of folks likely to be admired by a small government, fiscally conservative, pro freedom libertarian like Gary Johnson.

And I have to ask, which is worse, having a brain fart on a political talk show, where no one gets hurt (Johnson), or supporting an un-necessary war that helped get hundreds of thousands of people, including women and children SLAUGHTERED FOR NOTHING (as Hillary Clinton did with her "brain fart" decision to support the Iraq War). 

If the worst thing you've got on Johnson is "political talk show brain fart," you aren't going to convince me that makes him worse than Hillary "the death bringer" Clinton and her reckless decisions that have led to whole sale slaughter (and it wasn't just Iraq, either- that was just the worst of her screw ups).

Er, I assume you are a Hillary lover.  If you are a Trump supporter, I can only roll my eyes in dismay...