This Republican Newspaper Is Endorsing A Democrat For POTUS

Submitted by: holygod 8 months ago in News & Politics
hillary-clinton-flag-az

Excerpt from The Arizona Republic:

Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.

This year is different.

The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.

That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.

Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton has flaws. She has made serious missteps.

Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State was a mistake, as she has acknowledged. Donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of State raise concerns that donors were hoping to buy access. Though there is no evidence of wrongdoing, she should have put up a firewall.

Yet despite her flaws, Clinton is the superior choice.

She does not casually say things that embolden our adversaries and frighten our allies. Her approach to governance is mature, confident and rational.

That cannot be said of her opponent.

Clinton retains her composure under pressure. She’s tough. She doesn’t back down.

Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.

That’s beneath our national dignity.

When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet.

There are 34 comments:
Male 8,325
@CrackrJak "Obama & Hillary have ruined this country" OK. I'll play. HOW? Post data sets that show we are worse off today than in 2008. Give me 5 outside of the debt. If you'd like me to post 15 that show we are better I'd be happy to.
0
Reply
Male 8,325
Health insurance cost increases have gone down. Here is a chart from forbes showing the average annual increase in cost for a family of 4 year over year. http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2015/05/split2.jpg?width=960
0
Reply
Male 5,620
The media wants to keep the status quo.. well shit.. color me blind.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
/sarcasm
0
Reply
Male 303
And all of those newspapers are facing epic numbers of reader cancellations. After these papers fail and these fools lose their jobs, perhaps they'll wish they'd made a different decision.
0
Reply
Male 8,325
@CrackrJak I get that you hate Hillary, I really do. However, do you really not get taken aback by things like this? Newspapers that haven't endorsed a Democrat in 100+ years doing so, knowing it will cost them subscribers? Republican leaders that HATE Hillary publicly saying they cannot vote for Trump? Conservative luminaries who know it will hurt them or cost them their jobs publicly decrying him because he scares them? Does love of country and concern for the world not overcome your need to punch a hole next to the "R"?
0
Reply
Male 303
I could really do not care what #nevertrump'ers say. They are bitter, sad, elitist relics. It's time for change and you will NOT get change from Hillary. Change is always scary to some, but it's time has come.
0
Reply
Male 8,325
We DON'T NEED CHANGE. That's what you don't seem to get. We needed change in 2008 when we were entering the worst recession in 80 years and in the middle of two horribly managed wars. We got the change. Now we need to steady the ship, not blow it up. The country is in great shape. I've said it before, by almost every conceivable metric things are better than they were 8 years ago. You talk like we are in dire straits. I know where you get it from. I watch Fox News. I go on Breitbart. I listen to Limbaugh. So I get it, but think for yourself. If Obama had an R next to his name you would be singing his praises like he was the second coming. Its really kinda sad.
0
Reply
Male 8,325
@CrackrJak "Obama & Hillary have ruined this country" OK. I'll play. HOW? Post data sets that show we are worse off today than in 2008. Give me 5 outside of the debt. If you'd like me to post 15 that show we are better I'd be happy to.
0
Reply
Male 8,325
@CrackrJak Oh boy, Crackr, Crackr, Crackr. OK. Let me explain words and math to you as if you were a child because apparently you have the cognitive skills of one. What I said was: "Health insurance cost increases have gone down". Do you know what that means? It doesn't mean the costs have gone down. That has never happened once, ever. It means the annual increase has gone down. Did you even go to the link? In 2006 it went up 10%. In 2010 it went up 8%. In 2015 it went up 5%. You do understand that 5 is less than 10 right. Here, hold your fingers up. One hand is 5. Both hands is 10. Also do you see the chart you posted? Do you see how 2010 to 2015 is less steep than 1999 to 2010? I appreciate you trying to help me prove my point, but I got it covered with what I already posted.
0
Reply
Male 303
"We DON'T NEED CHANGE." The hell we don't! Obama & Hillary have ruined this country and it's now time Trump to repair it. "Health insurance cost increases have gone down." Just how screwed up are you?
0
Reply
Male 8,325
@elkingo These kinds of debates make me think we live in two different worlds. I found stats in 30 seconds that completely fucked up your argument. I didn't search for liberal sources I searched for reputable sources. My data indicates that not only are you wrong, you are super fucking wrong. Where do you get your information?
0
Reply
Male 8,325
@elkingo According to the census bureau in 1999 13.6% were uninsured. It got up to 16.3% in 2010. In 2014 it was down to 11.7%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States Gallup says the uninsured rate today is 11% http://www.gallup.com/poll/190484/uninsured-rate-lowest-eight-year-trend.aspx
0
Reply
Male 8,325
@elkingo Health insurance cost increases have gone down. Here is a chart from forbes showing the average annual increase in cost for a family of 4 year over year. http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2015/05/split2.jpg?width=960
0
Reply
Male 8,325
@elkingo There aren't any? Bull shit. Stop believing that. Republicans hammered unemployment for 4 years. Then it go so low they had to make something else up because all of a sudden that wasn't the "real number". No president until now has ever been judged by that work force number. Plus, I hate to break it to you, but that workforce participation level is so low because the baby boomers are retiring. Its going to keep going down and that's good. Nobody who needs a job quits looking. Talk about a load of horse shit.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
How many of the 23 federally-financed co-ops have already collapsed? How many more will this year? How many people quit looking for a job, because there aren't any? How much did the average healthcare cost per person 20 years ago? How much did it cost on average 8 years ago? 4 years ago? (Hint: The ACA has increased the cost by more than double). What about the percentage of Americans with insurance? In 1990 14% were uninsured. In 2000 13% were uninsured. In 2016 it is 16% that have no insurance. You can claim that "almost every conceivable metric things are better than they were 8 years ago." However, that is a load of horse shit.
0
Reply
Male 8,325
Gee. Let me see. Conservative newspapers in conservative areas are losing subscribers for endorsing a democrat? Who the fuck do you think subscribes to newspapers? Old people maybe? Kinda Trump's wheelhouse. I hate to break it to you, but newspapers already lose money. They make money from their online presence.
0
Reply
Male 2,986
But CJ, doesn't this give you pause? This isn't one or two newspapers--it's a dozen or so editorial boards all saying, essentially, "We've never declared a candidate unfit for the presidency, but we are now." Do you ever stop and consider if you're overlooking something? Seriously. To dismiss the opinions of prominent Republicans on this matter, including George H. W. Bush, you've got to believe you're seeing something they're all missing. And that is--?
0
Reply
Male 303
"We've never declared a candidate unfit for the presidency, but we are now." This just proves how ideologically co-opted, by liberals, newspapers are these days. Because, by far, Hillary is the "most unfit", most corrupt, worst candidate for presidency ever. But don't believe me, Believe Obama 2008, "Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing." Or Perhaps his wife Michelle, "How Can You Trust Someone To Run White House When She “Can’t Even Run Her Own House”? Perhaps Jerry Zeifman, Ted Kennedy's lawyer in 1974, after he fired her, “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” Sound familiar?
0
Reply
Male 8,325
Newspapers are co-opted by liberals? Even the ones that haven't endorsed a democrat in over 100 years? Come the fuck on man. Does it ever occur to you that maybe, people smarter than you are seeing something you don't see?
0
Reply
Male 2,986
I'm totally onboard with the criticisms of Hillary Clinton you've just posted. I don't believe a lot of the more extreme right-wing conspiracy tales about her (and her husband), but I do believe her primary motivations are personal ambition and greed. I don't think she is fundamentally honest and I think she has more than a whiff of corruption about her. Those are her drawbacks, and in any other election, they'd be more than enough to keep me from voting for her. Unfortunately, I have even more issues with Donald Trump. I won't list my complaints here (you've probably heard them all, and worse, before). I will say that I think the editorial board of USA Today nailed it. .... Unfortunately, I just can't agree with your analysis that the Republican newspapers, and many leading Republican figures, are refusing to endorse Trump because they have been "ideologically co-opted by liberals." I think their grievances are legitimate and I agree with them. I wish that it were otherwise. We need a national figure to get this country off the destructive course its on, but I don't think Trump is the answer.
0
Reply
Male 5,892
Actual facts don't matter. It's Republican vs. Democrat and any way he finds to endorse the Republican, even if it means generating bullshit excuses for ignoring everything else, works just fine. They're poor candidates, yes. He's allowed to find her the poorer and vote for him, yes. But he's clearly also a knee-jerk republican and that's kind of sad.
0
Reply
Male 8,325
Not just them. The list is huge. Erick Erickson of Red State. George Will of the Washington Post. Senator John Warner. Mitt Romney. Karl Rove. Tons of current and former Republican leaders. Lindsey Graham: "There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary" Senator Susan Collins: "his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing—either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level—that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president"
0
Reply
Male 2,516
I'll say it one more time. If you vote for Hill or Trump, you are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo part of the problem. The ass and the oliphant need to be served notice that they need to go the fuck off and die.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. "When the foundation is weak, do you wail and gnash your teeth? Do you ask it to re-pour itself? No, you tear it down and begin anew."
0
Reply
Male 2,986
So you're voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson then? My apologies if you've already stated as much elsewhere.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
I'm holding my nose and voting GJ ....* gives s4e a few unsalted peanuts and a courtesy scratch behind each ear.*
0
Reply
Male 2,986
Thanks! Have to watch my waistline, but don't mind if I do. ~noms peanuts~  Crazy, isn't it? In this election, it seems everyone is holding their noses except the Trump voters. Strange times, strange times.
0
Reply
Male 7,059
Hillary is the Republican the GOP really wanted.
0
Reply
Male 2,986
Words of wisdom there, Normalfreak. Truly, today's party Democrats are pretty much the Republicans of 30 years ago.
0
Reply
Male 20,305
I just read that USA Today endorsed Clinton yesterday. That's a big one considering it's massive and it's kind of generic and middle of the road on everything.
0
Reply
Male 2,986
What makes it even more significant: This is the first time in USA Today's 34-year history that it has ever expressed an opinion on a presidential race. The decision to speak out this time came as a result of a unanimous opinion of the 8-member editorial board that Trump was unfit for the presidency. .... You can read the editorial here.
0
Reply
Male 8,325
25 Newspapers, and counting, and not ONE has endorsed Trump. Yes, I know the media is so liberally biased. However, 11 of those papers endorsed Romney in 2012. One hasn't endorsed a Democrat since 1940, one since 1944, one since 1916, once since 1890, and one since 1868. http://tinyurl.com/z89fp79
0
Reply
Male 8,325
25 Newspapers, and counting, and not ONE has endorsed Trump. Yes, I know the media is so liberally biased. However, 11 of those papers endorsed Romney in 2012. One hasn't endorsed a Democrat since 1940, one since 1944, one since 1916, once since 1890, and one since 1868. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016
0
Reply
Male 8,325
By the way the Arizona Republic received bomb and death threats for this. Homeland Security was there yesterday and people were evacuated. One more indication in a long line of indications as to what kind of people support Trump.
0
Reply