Wow.
EPIC burn!
Some here may disagree, but I think itâs fine if a paper which isnât usual slams Trump without endorsing Hillary. The implication is clear anyway.
He sounds terrible.
Terrified Pundits Finally Use Their Safe Word: Hillary
Yes, I think this is major. For USA Today, the ultimate OTOH newspaper to condemn Trump is extraordinary.
The Ed board at USA Today clearly doesnât understand the potential consequences of third party votes.
exactly. For the paper that prides itself on being inane middle-of-the-road saccharine and fluff and never sticking its name out for anything, this is an incredibly strong condemnation. Hopefully, it will have some impactâŚ
Unfortunately, Trump himself could endorse Clinton and it wouldnât have an impact.
This was my thought as well. Although, perhaps the thinking is to drive Republican voters to the Libertarian ticket rather than to Hillary.
At this point attacking trump is a waste of energy. Itâs time to go after those in congress who still support him and let them know they will be held personally accountable if he gets elected.
Yet despite this blistering takedown, the board stops short of urging USA Todayâs 3 million daily readers to support Clinton, citing a lack of consensus among the board members.
Yeah, thatâs the ticket. Look how well that kind of thinking worked in Maine, after all. Stupid, cowardly c-bombs.
Because:
Other board members have serious reservations about Clintonâs sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.
Goddamned idiots.
Now the Wall Street Journal is leaning Hillary
âIt will be either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clintonâexperienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined and eminently sane,â Pulitzer Prize-winner Dorothy Rabinowitz writes in a column headlined âHillary-Hatred Derangement Syndrome.â
âHer election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House.â
Voting for anyone other than Clinton is a vote for Trump. That the geniuses on the USA Today editorial board canât work out how simple math and first-past-the-post election formats work, is pretty sad frankly. Glad they see the reality that Trump is a threat. The only way to counter that threat is to vote for Clinton. Anything else helps Trump win.
Yep.
Back in May USA Today discussed the question of whether they would make an endorsement - and to be fair, they have never in 34 years of existence âendorsedâ any candidate.
Interestingly , the only Editorial action that they had ever taken before was the one time USA TODAYâs editorial board decided to âdisendorseâ a political candidate â former KKK leader David Duke. So they took a kind of âanybody but Dukeâ posture - much as they have now done with Trump.
So in 34 years - in Presidential and all other elections they uniformly refrained from making a pronouncement on any candidates ⌠with TWO EXCEPTIONS -
DAVID DUKE and DONALD TRUMP
I agree. While it is debatable how much newspaper endorsements translate to actual votes these days, I have to believe that the rallying of the usually silent and traditionally conservative publications against Trump will have a non-zero effect on the electorate.
If this moves the needle by a tenth of a point in the favor of Clinton, itâs worth it.
yes piled on the wood tossed large ammouts of gasoline and set the torches upon the stack and boy did it BURN baby BURNâŚand now drumpf will obviously say⌠USA today is a liberal rag not worth reading