USA Today editorial board declares Trump unfit for Presidency

[conserveguy877]

Who still buys USA today newspapers?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 15428338

that the polls find are based on massive lying by the Left.

Are you saying all left wingers lied to PEW researchers? Do you have any scientific data to substantiate such nonsense?

Or are you just opposed to science in general?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Typical alt right falsehood >>> I think that the numbers that the polls find are based on massive lying by the Left.

Since the alt right candidate is failing, the reasoning by the crazies is that they are not wrong but the media is fabricating falsehoods against DJT.

.

 

[playtime]

PEPE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 15428338,

A real discussion of the issue might let the Truth on the issues get out.

What is your idea of a 'real' discussion? How does it lead to getting the 'truth' on immigration out?

What "truth" are you demanding be out?

Is it that a large majority of Americans are very concerned about Hispanics taking away their jobs. Bring some data. Your personal opinion means very little.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll is absolutely his opinion on this matter is fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

USA Today's editorial board is unfit for providing news.

This isn't news. It's an editorial. By the editorial board. In the editorial section of the paper.

What the editorial board of a newspaper prints as opinion will pretty much tell you what their bias is going to be with the news as well. Just saying...

So we should never trust the Washington Times.

 

[boedicca]

Well, of course The Establishment Imperial Administrative State and its CRONIES prefer hiLIARy.

 

[hunarcy]

USA Today is a conservative newspaper with a huge circulation

They have never before endorsed a candidate for President. This time, they thought he danger so severe, they had to declare Trump unqualified

USA Today is NOT a conservative newspaper. And, as far as I know, they did NOT endorse Hillary.

 

[hunarcy]

Who still buys USA today newspapers?

Motels and hotels buy them...other than that, I have no idea who buys 'em

 

[Flopper]

blackhawk, post: 15417719

Should I show you one from the same years when McCain and Romney got dozens of the newspaper endorsements the ones you guys suddenly find so relevant now but didn't then and how those elections turned out?

Big difference now. It's Conservative newspapers declaring the Republican nominee unfit and dangerous. Retired Republican Senator from Virginia John Warner endorsed Clinton at a campaign rally with Kaine. That's huge. Not one endorsement is one nail in the coffin for Trump, but lots of conservative nails are really adding up.

We have five living presidents, 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans and they are all going to vote for Hillary. Trump supporters may dismissed this because these people are the establishment. However, the other side of the coin is they spent 28 years in the Oval Office. They know better than anyone just how difficult the job is and the kind skills, temperament, and character needed and they are all saying no to Trump. Now this is only 5 presidents, but IMHO, none of last 10 presidents would vote for Trump.

 

[the_human_being]

BUSTED! Look Who Bill Clinton Was Just Caught Hanging With As Hillary Hustled Votes

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the seven women Trump has poked the last three months do not matter?

 

[hjmick]

And yet they still endorse Hilliary...

There was no endorsement of Clinton.
It was an editorial outlining why they believe Trump is unfit to be president.

I shit you not, I could have sworn I typed "And yet they still didn't endorse Hilliary." That's fucking embarrassing because that stood out to me when I read the article...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And yet they still endorse Hilliary...

There was no endorsement of Clinton.
It was an editorial outlining why they believe Trump is unfit to be president.

I shit you not, I could have sworn I typed "And yet they still didn't endorse Hilliary." That's fucking embarrassing because that stood out to me when I read the article...

What is an endorsement?
Is stating that one candidate is way more awful than the other an endorsement of the other?

Is saying as an elected official that they'll vote for him but not officially endorse him still an endorsement?

They didn't extol the virtues of Clinton or implore people to give her their vote.

 

[Flopper]

And yet they still endorse Hilliary...

There was no endorsement of Clinton.
It was an editorial outlining why they believe Trump is unfit to be president.

I shit you not, I could have sworn I typed "And yet they still didn't endorse Hilliary." That's fucking embarrassing because that stood out to me when I read the article...

What is an endorsement?
Is stating that one candidate is way more awful than the other an endorsement of the other?

Is saying as an elected official that they'll vote for him but not officially endorse him still an endorsement?

They didn't extol the virtues of Clinton or implore people to give her their vote.

A political endorsement is nothing more than a statement of support. It's value depends on what that support might be. Sometimes it is nothing but a statement. In other cases, that support will take the form of campaign contributions, phone banks, and active campaigning. Newspapers usually run their recommendations the week before the election which serves as a guide for the voters who have little interest in the race but want to vote. Also the endorsement of a newspaper will often result in editorials favorable to the candidate.

Unions, trade associations, environmental groups, and other special interest groups research the candidates policies and select the one who most closely aligns with the principals of the organization. So, if you're a teacher, and an environmentalist, then the endorsement of the teachers union and environmental groups will probably carry some weight with you.

 

[rightwinger]

USA Today's editorial board is unfit for providing news.

This isn't news. It's an editorial. By the editorial board. In the editorial section of the paper.

Editorial boards traditionally pick one candidate over the other

But to declare a major candidate for president "unfit for office" is unprecidented

USA Today has been running anti Trump editorials for the better part of a year. This latest one simply demonstrates that they are getting frantic because nobody seems to paying any attention to them.

They have been running anti-Trump editorials because Trump has been acting erratically for over a year. That is not favoritism, that is reality

 

[Mac1958]

Okie dokie!
.

Do you see the difference between targeting players and targeting the population?

I see the difference within the context of your point, I just don't agree.
.

How so?

I honestly don't know how to respond here. I realize there is nothing I can say. You see absolutes, I don't. You see one candidate as defensible and the other as tearing the nation apart, I don't care for either candidate. This is an asymmetrical conversation. Maybe you should be having this conversation with a left wing partisan ideologue who will respond with their own attacks and absolutes.
.

You are aware of why I believe one candidate is tearing this nation apart.

You could explain why you disagree with my analysis on that, OR what about Trump there is that balances out that negative of Hillary's.

Of those two options, the latter would be easier.

First, I agree with much of what the USA Today article listed: He is erratic, he is ill-equipped to be Commander in Chief, he isn't leveling with the American people, he speaks recklessly, he has coarsened the American dialogue, and while I wouldn't necessarily say that he is a serial liar, I would definitely say that I have never seen anyone who communicates almost exclusively in blatant hyperbole like this man - which leaves me in the same position as dealing with a serial liar in that nothing he says can be taken seriously.

Further, he simply can't let things go when someone gets under his skin, his childish early morning tweets about that Machado lady being just the latest ridiculous example. It's pretty obvious that such a character flaw can be dangerous in such a dangerous, hair-trigger world. I am also not at all convinced that he possesses the intellectual agility or capacity required of someone who holds that office. Yes, he has enjoyed a measure of success in business, but overwhelming people through the sheer force of your personality is not going to work in this position.

And I haven't even gotten into the issues. Why bother? No one can predict with any certainty what he would actually do, because (a) no one really knows his core beliefs and (b) he's likely to turn on a dime on any of them.

And finally, I don't really know if I need to even list these flaws. I'm pretty sure his fans see them, at least on a subconscious level, but they're willing to brush them away like flies at a picnic because (a) they have completely bought into his bizarre act and (b) they have allowed themselves to be convinced that Hillary Clinton is literally some kind of Attila the Hun/Chairman Mao hybrid.

Again, I don't like Hillary Clinton. She's an awful, awful candidate. But Trump should not be President, and I feel obliged (especially in a swing state) to vote accordingly. And even though I do lean a little left, had the GOP run a sane ticket like Kasich/Rubio, I probably would have voted for them.
.

 

[rightwinger]

USA Today is a conservative newspaper with a huge circulation

They have never before endorsed a candidate for President. This time, they thought he danger so severe, they had to declare Trump unqualified

USA Today is NOT a conservative newspaper. And, as far as I know, they did NOT endorse Hillary.

They stuck with their policy of not endorsing Hillary but felt Trumps character and experience was bad enough to encourage voters NOT to vote for him

 

[Correll]

Trump has a crude, even vulgar public persona.

That is hardly crazy.



Hillary is seriously running on painting half the nation as crazy Nazis.

That is crazy.

If you give a damn about this nation.

As bad and embarrassing as Trump's persona is, there is far more to it than that me.

I think he lacks the temperament, intellectual elasticity and overall capacity for the position.

Hillary? Yeah, that's one truly lousy candidate right there. And even though I lean a bit to the left, I would most likely have voted for a sane, intelligent, rational GOP ticket like Kasich/Rubio.

But I'm told my vote is needed.
.

The funny part is that Hillary was eminently beatable in 2016. Everything was in the Republicans favor.....then they selected Trump

Well before Trump was selected you started a thread claiming that the Next Republican candidate has not been born.


You made a strong case.


Now you are saying it is Trump's fault.

Do you even realize that that proves you are lying?

Very true

And the slim window Republicans had to win the Presidency in 2016 was blown when they selected Trump

Trumps destruction of the women's vote, Hispanics and minorities will blow Republican chances to take back the White House for decades

You can't have it both ways.


If demographics are changing so that no republican can ever win, which was your prediction well before Trump,

then you don't get to blame individual republican candidates, like Trump, for their loss.



The dem lock on minority votes was set in concrete long before TRump.

AS YOU DESCRIBED LAST YEAR.



You are being dishonest.



It is bad enough that you lefties have come up with a system for total control.



Lying and telling us it is our fault is just adding insult to injury.


Are you actively trying to make sure that the future is as shitty as possible?





And the time frame is not decades. It's generations.