Hillary For President

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Heh, I see you're all in with der T'Rumpolini, Mike.
At least you'll have something to gripe about for the next eight years.

I have no doubt that Mike is all in for Trump but there's nothing in his post to indicate that.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

So let's see. According to the LA Times, Clinton:

- has a penchant for secrecy (to put it as mildly as possible)
- has a self-defeating resistance to disclosure
- has a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood
- doesn't appear to be open to compromise and willing to consider new facts
- has a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable (meaning that they're still bummed about the Iraq War)
- pressed for military action in Libya - a no no to the LA Times
- is running a campaign that might seem unexciting
- has an on-going FBI investigation that is, at least, "embarrassing"
- seems inauthentic (don't look behind the curtain).

In the article, the editorial chides Sander's "Medicare for all" plan as not realistic and a reason to support Hillary. Yet Hillary has now moved towards Sanders on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us...tion.html?_r=0

The article faults Sanders for a financial reform proposal that would "...exact a punishment on companies at the heart of the last recession..." Yet Hillary has campaigned on "punishing" companies that won't repatriate foreign profits.

...yet the LA Times still sees fit to call this an "endorsement".

I think the LA Times has just lowered the bar on what constitutes an endorsement.

Isn't it amazing that the lefties are just as gullible falling head over heels for Hillary as they pillory the right for their admiration for Trump. Add LA times to Hillary's team.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Heh, I see you're all in with der T'Rumpolini, Mike.
At least you'll have something to gripe about for the next eight years.

Actually I'm not "with" anybody yet. I just can't believe that, rather than just take a pass on endorsing either candidate, the LA Times decided that publishing this is mess of an "endorsement" was somehow a better service to their readers. Sometimes saying nothing speaks volumes.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Mike, are you sitting down? I agree 100% with the above. This is a perfect example of "damning with faint praise. One could be forgiven for suspecting that the LA Times editorial board was told whom to endorse.

I'm not surprised actually. It does raise questions about what role the newspapers / new media play in this process anymore. The media has always been about selling their product. But at least there used to be a pretense of journalistic integrity.

[nailer]

The reporting of Vietnam was an exercise in biased journalistic integrity.

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by whell

So let's see. According to the LA Times, Clinton:

- has a penchant for secrecy (to put it as mildly as possible)
- has a self-defeating resistance to disclosure
- has a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood
- doesn't appear to be open to compromise and willing to consider new facts
- has a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable (meaning that they're still bummed about the Iraq War)
- pressed for military action in Libya - a no no to the LA Times
- is running a campaign that might seem unexciting
- has an on-going FBI investigation that is, at least, "embarrassing"
- seems inauthentic (don't look behind the curtain).

So what you're saying is, she's a republican.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

So let's see. According to the LA Times, Clinton:

- has a penchant for secrecy (to put it as mildly as possible)
- has a self-defeating resistance to disclosure
- has a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood
- doesn't appear to be open to compromise and willing to consider new facts
- has a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable (meaning that they're still bummed about the Iraq War)
- pressed for military action in Libya - a no no to the LA Times
- is running a campaign that might seem unexciting
- has an on-going FBI investigation that is, at least, "embarrassing"
- seems inauthentic (don't look behind the curtain).

In the article, the editorial chides Sander's "Medicare for all" plan as not realistic and a reason to support Hillary. Yet Hillary has now moved towards Sanders on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us...tion.html?_r=0

The article faults Sanders for a financial reform proposal that would "...exact a punishment on companies at the heart of the last recession..." Yet Hillary has campaigned on "punishing" companies that won't repatriate foreign profits.

...yet the LA Times still sees fit to call this an "endorsement".

I think the LA Times has just lowered the bar on what constitutes an endorsement.

I wonder where the media finds all this BS, Hillary's biggest fault is that she is a woman, and we can't have a second class citizen in the Oval Office.

The FBI investigation is a horse's arse, Congress had to ask for her e-mails, all the ones from the government's server were handed out by Wikileaks.

They are right because this country would screw up something as easy as SinglePayer. I speak from experience and my biggest regret this day is that I did not take Florence to Canada for treatment, she would be still alive.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I wonder where the media finds all this BS, Hillary's biggest fault is that she is a woman, and we can't have a second class citizen in the Oval Office.

To some. To others it's her biggest asset.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Hillary's biggest fault is that she is a woman.

Hillary's biggest fault is that she's a corporate whore.

She has many other faults, but that's her biggest.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Hillary's biggest fault is that she's a corporate whore.

She has many other faults, but that's her biggest.

Tom can you come up with a single instance where she has used her political status to do a favour for said corporate folk, and back it with proof. Or are you simply content to be a GOP echo chamber?