I have no such hopes, now and going forward, and I cannot imagine what it would take to restore faith in their ABILITY to be objective.
Yesterday they published a ‘we can never endorse this fascist‘ editorial…
The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.What was their reasoning?
Any one of these characteristics would be disqualifying; together, they make Mr. Trump a peril. We recognize that this is not the usual moment to make such a statement. In an ordinary election year, we would acknowledge the Republican nominee, move on to the Democratic convention and spend the following months, like other voters, evaluating the candidates’ performance in debates, on the stump and in position papers.
This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views on all the candidates.
But we cannot salute the Republican nominee or pretend that we might endorse him this fall. A Trump presidency would be dangerous for the nation and the world.
“In a dangerous world, Mr. Trump speaks blithely of abandoning NATO”Of course when the full transcript of the NY Times interview was published Mr. Trump was ADMONISHING certain NATO members, who depend on the USA to guard their independence, to ensure they fulfill the obligations the alliance requires and NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE of American taxpayers.
It’s called NEGOTIATION
Perhaps this kind of ‘editorial’ contortions of facts is why Trump threw WaPo out.
On Asia, is there anyone who can deny that Japan’s (and others) resurgence was due to the American taxpayer paying to watch over them during the 50′s-80′s? And of course during this time they had EXTREMELY HIGH import barriers (and domestic salaries to match) to allow themselves to grow? And they were smart and admirable to do so. Mr. Trump wants to ensure we are as adroit.
Republicans have criticized President Obama for “apologizing” for America and for weakening alliances. Now they put forward a candidate who mimics the vilest propaganda of authoritarian adversaries about how terrible the United States is and how unfit it is to lecture others.Trump is VILE. Get it? Of course his position that we should not lecture others took place AFTER cop shootings, demonstrations proposing cop killings, and then before OTHER cop shootings, amid claims cops are killing black Americans and feeling impunity about it, and in fact was the EXACT position regarding lecturing and acting against others as one JQ Adams (at the least).
Worse, he doesn’t seem to care about its limitations on executive power. He has threatened that those who criticize him will suffer when he is president. He has vowed to torture suspected terrorists and bomb their innocent relatives, no matter the illegality of either act. He has vowed to constrict the independent press.Well, WaPo, it seems you care about out of control executive power if Mr. Obama is not president, or some other dependable member of the political class who plays by rules you understand. Does the self arrogating, self extending power of the EPA bother you? Hello? If we declare war does this now mean the fates of Dresden and Yokohama and Tokyo are illegal? Or is this really that you might be found guilty of libel as this editorial flirts with? When you said “blithely of abandoning NATO” was this malice, knowing what he certainly said and undeniably meant?
I have problems with Mr. Trump, some major, but they PALE in comparison to the COMPLETELY disconnected WaPo editorial board, Hillary Clinton and her past, and the out of control executive branch of the govt.
I really HATE the idea I am done with WaPo, and will be cancelling the online and Kindle subscriptions I have, but your editorial, well …it’s distortions, purposeful, self serving, self identifying you as an arch-member of the political class which only knows it‘s own echo chambers values and expertise … was VILE and worse still, makes it OBVIOUS that this:
"This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views on all the candidates."
is a self deluded lie at best, and a purposeful treatment of voters as SCHMUCKS as a middle case.
I’ll find other sources to manage the search to vet claims in the news.
Yes, you have pointed out a very important distinction.
What the "elites" perceive as threats coming out of the mouth of Trump,
we the losers perceive as negotiation tactics.
This is, of course, because we are all so unsophisticated.
Post a Comment