New York Times: Hillary Clinton For President

The NYT endorsed Hillary Clinton for president today in a comprehensive editorial which suggested it was aimed at persuading hesitant voters to vote for Hillary.

The editorial indicates that an editorial telling why the paper considers Donald Trump to be totally unfit for the job...will follow on Monday.

The editorial contains details of why the paper considers Hillary Clinton to be an outstanding candidate.

It is an excellent editorial. Hope you all read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?_r=0

 

I doubt it was an excellent editorial. From what you posted

It seems like another article that's completely aimed at shaming people into voting for Hillary, or trying to entice people that fear of Trump should make them vote for a person they disagree with it. From the tone of the passage it seems like the article will be aimed at classifying peoples legitimate criticisms of Hillary, as insignificant. An argument that does nothing but fuels people's dislikes for Hillary more. I bet it includes such classic phrases as, "A vote for a third party is a vote for trump" Or "a vote for a third party is a wasted vote".

It's an argument that people are rejecting. As an Independent, it's become almost comical to me when people try to sell Hillary as an outstanding candidate, because everything I've seen from this election cycle indidcates that she representents everything I despise about politics. Speaking to other people around my age group, this seems like a very common theme.

With that being said, I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, so I'll do so when I get the chance. My expectations going into it are very low if they're towting the idea that Hillary's an "excellent candidate" At this point I honestly have more respect for the people who state that they simply believe she's a superior candidate to Trump, than the people who try and pretend like the critisisms against Hillary are all a right wing conspiracy, and underneath it all you have someone who represents the people.

But that's politics as usual, which is why I'm voting third party.

Also on a side note, I never once understood why Newspapers got into the practice of endorsing candidates. To me that just seems like a conflict of intrest, if the goal is fair and accurate news coverage. How can any news source endorse someone and then claim to give accurate representations of the election process? It's always seemed weird to me that this has become a common practice

 

Okay...you are not going to vote for her. And you think newspapers ought not to endorse.

Thanks for sharing that.

 

Great she got an endorsement from a supermarket tabloid.

 

The New York Times is not a tabloid.

 

it most certainly is.

It is nothing more than a left wing print version of FOX news and worthless to most thinking people.

Other tabloids like the National Enquirer probably get greater circulation.

 

You do not even know what the word "tabloid" means, Soup.

Look it up before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

 

I do and the NYT fits perfectly.

Sorry to burst your delusional bubble

 

Breaking News! NYT and CNN endorse Hillary!
Breaking News! WSJ and FOX endorse Trump!

 

A bit confusing. I'll direct you to really an excellent piece article published by the same newspaper few years ago.

NYT: Obama admin 'has lost all credibility'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/06/nyt-obama-admin-has-lost-all-credibility-165612

The New York Times editorial board responded to revelations about the NSA's gathering of Americans' phone records with a scathing editorial on Thursday afternoon condemning the Obama administration for abusing the power of the executive branch.

"Within hours of the disclosure... the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights," the Times editorial read.

"Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability," it contineud. "The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media...has-lost-all-credibility-165612#ixzz4LE2fu1cg
Follow us: [MENTION=8433]politico[/MENTION] on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

 

Here is one of the prime issue with the media in the US in my opinion. A NEWS outlet, which should be reporting all of the FACTS on things with as little bias as possible comes right out and endorses a candidate for President. To me there are not many if any of the NEWS outlets left in the US. Every one of them is pushing an agenda.

 

Frank, Stick to your golf game and be careful at night walking around in the bad spots of town. Your politicking is atrocious and your buddy deBlasio is destroying the city.

 

Why is this presented as anything other than a foregone conclusion?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-the-new-york-times-public-editor.html?_r=0

How long you think it will be before she's fired?

 

She's ready@!!

 

Socialist editors endorse a socialist candidate. Shocking.

 

Nah...Hillary isn't a socialist. She's a warmonger. By the way, Obama shouldn't be considered a socialist. Socialists don't play golf. They despise it. Obama loves it!

 

Both of them advocate the government taking over more of the American economy than what the average wants.

 

If the election is close and Trump adds trillions to our debt for no good reason, some planned and some because a leader insulted his ego, third party voters will be sorry. No, the two main candidates are not similar enough for anybody to vote 3rd party.

 

Agreed. The New York Times continually shows itself to be anything but a "news" organization.

The shocking thing is the number of people who seem to believe the New York Times conveys a centrist view.

This is a truly silly statement. The election may be close, but the electoral situation in a good many states will be such that voting for a third party candidate will make absolutely zero difference to the overall result. A case in point: I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton, so I plan to cast a vote for Gary Johnson. In California, if I don't vote for Hillary, it doesn't matter who I vote for, since Hillary will win the state handily. The same situation exists in Trump states. The fact of the matter is that if you don't live in one of the swing states and you want to vote for a person other than the one who is going to win the state, casting a vote for a 3rd party candidate remains a very good option.

 

I can see where you're coming from. However, I'll have to disagree based on their record. Both of them are staunch neoliberals. If you dissect their domestic policies you will find out that they both support neoliberal agenda on steroids. . As for their foreign policies, they're blatantly neoliberal.I call it 3D. Dehumanisation, death and destruction. Hallmark of neoliberal interventionists.

 

Another classic example of trying to shame people into voting for Hillary, without actually saying anything about why Hillary represents our interest in any way. I have news for you Third Party voters will be sorry regardless of the outcome this election. That's nice that trump will add trillions onto the nation debt, makes him a bad candidate as I've said numerous times.. I've yet to hear Hilary denounce the #1 cause of our nation debt, our military industrial complex which includes trillions of dollars spent on interventionist wars, maintaining military bases in 128 countries and, a trillions dollars worth of foreign aide to countries including (Egypt, Israel, Philippines, south Korea, and Saudi Arabia). In fact Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state not only pushed to continue these policies, but has supported nearly every single pre-emptive military action we've had since 2000. Hell, she was the most prominent voice behind our terrible attacks in Libya, which destabilized a whole region and made it easy for Isis to come to power. Also, when she stated that "We need to set up a no fly zone in Syria" in this election, it clearly showed that she has no intention to stop our foreign policy, but instead wishes to expand on it.

The craziest part of the matter is, when Trump actually suggested that we should have "good relations" with Russia is it was probably the only positive thing I've heard from either of two main candidates on foreign policy. In this election cold war dialogue has been reignited by Hillary, the DNC and the Neo Cons.

So why exactly should third party/independent voters who want change, vote for Hillary when she's consistently shown that her values don't match up to what we want out of this country?

Yes the two party candidates aren't "similar". They're completely different. Hillary represents everything my generation hates about politics (All wrapped into one), whiles Trump represents Fascism, hate and Xenophobia. However, a clear distinction to point out, is a guy like Trump couldn't have rose to power, if politicians like Hillary in both parties didn't completely corrupt our political system. That is exactly why they're "close" enough to vote for neither. People who vote for a candidate, based on fear for another, showcase the worst disease in politics, the disease of political cowardice. When you're the kind of voter who just needs the establishment to fear monger about the oppositional candidate for you to fall in line, you're the easiest kind of voter to manipulate.

In the words of John Quincy Adams "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost".

 

You do not know...or you would realize the NY Times is not one.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would that confuse you?

- - - Updated - - -

Been happening for over a hundred years.

Get use to it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not a fan of DeBlasio.

I enjoy commenting on politics.

 

Without ALL of Bernie Sanders supporters voting for her, she can't win. 5.8 million already said they wouldn't vote for Hillary and that was before the DNC eMails were released.

 

Cool, when are you going to start doing that?

To the topic, the NYT gnashes its teeth, gets down to business, and makes a hard, objective, tough choice, after much soul-searching, between candidates, chooses Hillary and documents its reasons with the same objective clarity it used to reach them. The Trump Campaign, hoping it might have received the NYT endorsement, expressed surprise and disappointment. ROFL.