NY Times endorses McCain and Clinton

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: bamacre
Yay, more war, higher deficits, and higher taxes.

PSA: Don't stand up yet, please remain on all fours and buy more lube.

Yup I am just outright shocked, shocked I tell you, the zionist NYT endorses the war candidates. I never saw it coming.

The Global Jewish Conspiracy strikes again! :roll:

Zionist does not equal Jewish. Zionism is a political idea, Jewishness is a religion. Surely you see the difference. :roll:

It is no coincidence that Hillary went to New York to anchor her political power base for her presidential bid.

Because Jews live in New York? But, I thought Zionism and Judaism had nothing to do with each other? Didn't you just say that?

Sorry if I'm confused, but you're equating Zionism with Jews when it benefits your argument, but when I call you out on it you say the exact opposite.

Some Jews are Zionists. Not all Jews are Zionists. That is obvious.

It is a fact that large parts of US media is owned and/or run by Zionist Jews (like the NYT). Zionist Jews are also powerful in banking eg. I am saying Hillary has allied herself with powerful Zionist interests (money/media/politics) for political power. I am not saying Hillary has allied herself with Judaism. Zionism =/ Judaism.

If Hillary was not an AIPAC approved tool (like McCain) she would not have been endorsed by the NYT.








 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Thump553
I hope someone who subscribes to the NY Times can post the full portion of this editorial dealing with Guiliani. A bigger, and much harsher, part of the editorial was in my morning paper.

Guiliani's gone after the Florida primary-hopefully.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 25, 2008
Editorial
Primary Choices: John McCain
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain?s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country?s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani?s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn?t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city?s and the country?s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

The other candidates offer no better choices.

Mitt Romney?s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is an affable, reassuring Baptist minister who talks about a softer Christian conservativism. His policies tell the real story. To attract Republican primary voters, he has become an anti-immigrant absolutist. His insertion of religion into the race, herding Mr. Romney into a defense of his beliefs, disqualified him for the Oval Office.

Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush?s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq?s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.

In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.

That doesn?t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party?s presidential nomination.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though Giuliani was cavalier in his dismissal of the Times endorsement of McCain when he was asked about it at last night's debate, something tells me when he earned the Times endorsement in 97 for relection as Mayor that he didn't complain about their agenda, or rebuke or refuse their endorsement.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: techs
-snip

Clinton and McCain are probably the two best candidates from their respective parties.

So Hillary fanbois endorse McCain?

Hahaha, that outta be the deathknell to his candidacy.

Otherwise, do any Repubs give a sh!t who the NYT endorses as a Repub candidate? Jeebus, that's like the League of Arab Nations endorsing a candidate for President of Israel.

Fern
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern

Otherwise, do any Repubs give a sh!t who the NYT endorses as a Repub candidate? Jeebus, that's like the League of Arab Nations endorsing a candidate for President of Israel.

Fern

It's the most respected newspaper in the country, so yeah I'd guess that people care what they think, republicans included. Of course someone who has already made up their mind in another direction might try to belittle their endorsement.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
If the democrats are interested in winning, they will nominate Obama, for various reasons.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If the democrats are interested in winning, they will nominate Obama, for various reasons.

Of course you fail to cite any of those reasons. Just go around repeating it and eventually people will believe it... is that your strategy?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Fern

Otherwise, do any Repubs give a sh!t who the NYT endorses as a Repub candidate? Jeebus, that's like the League of Arab Nations endorsing a candidate for President of Israel.

Fern

It's the most respected newspaper in the country, so yeah I'd guess that people care what they think, republicans included. Of course someone who has already made up their mind in another direction might try to belittle their endorsement.

It's the most respected newspaper in the country?

Jeebus man, some Repubs have called for them to be indicted over disclosing anti-terrorism programs.

Having the NYT endorse somebody for the Repub nomination is like Rush Limbaugh emdorsing someone for the Dem nomination.

Fern
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Fern

Otherwise, do any Repubs give a sh!t who the NYT endorses as a Repub candidate? Jeebus, that's like the League of Arab Nations endorsing a candidate for President of Israel.

Fern

It's the most respected newspaper in the country, so yeah I'd guess that people care what they think, republicans included. Of course someone who has already made up their mind in another direction might try to belittle their endorsement.

It's the most respected newspaper in the country?

Jeebus man, some Repubs have called for them to be indicted over disclosing anti-terrorism programs.

Having the NYT endorse somebody for the Repub nomination is like Rush Limbaugh emdorsing someone for the Dem nomination.

Fern

:thumbsup: QFT

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Fern

Otherwise, do any Repubs give a sh!t who the NYT endorses as a Repub candidate? Jeebus, that's like the League of Arab Nations endorsing a candidate for President of Israel.

Fern

It's the most respected newspaper in the country, so yeah I'd guess that people care what they think, republicans included. Of course someone who has already made up their mind in another direction might try to belittle their endorsement.

It's the most respected newspaper in the country?

Jeebus man, some Repubs have called for them to be indicted over disclosing anti-terrorism programs.

Having the NYT endorse somebody for the Repub nomination is like Rush Limbaugh emdorsing someone for the Dem nomination.

Fern

Most people still consider it the most prestigious paper. Probably in the world.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: bamacre
Yay, more war, higher deficits, and higher taxes.

PSA: Don't stand up yet, please remain on all fours and buy more lube.

Ding Ding.


What I think will be interesting is IF she wins, to see how techs will start to justify all of her actions even if they are poor ones.

Who, you might be surprised to find that some people are capable of forming criticism based on something other than "I think she's a bitch." For instance, if hypothetically Hillary were elected and she enacted policy I was not content with I would gladly start calling her names with you and the all other superficial, reactionary loud mouths.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If the democrats are interested in winning, they will nominate Obama, for various reasons.

Of course you fail to cite any of those reasons. Just go around repeating it and eventually people will believe it... is that your strategy?
I am not voting in this election at all.

I will cite the main reason: Hillary is hated, not just by Republicans vehemently, but even a good number of democrats. Happy now?

 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If the democrats are interested in winning, they will nominate Obama, for various reasons.

Of course you fail to cite any of those reasons. Just go around repeating it and eventually people will believe it... is that your strategy?
I am not voting in this election at all.

I will cite the main reason: Hillary is hated, not just by Republicans vehemently, but even a good number of democrats. Happy now?

Funny, if she's hated by so many then why is she leading in so many polls? If she was hated by so much of the public as you make it sound, my guess is she would have been out of the race already. I will concede that there is a relatively small group of people with a particularly bitter and hateful attitude towards her, especially here on these forums.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: M0RPH
I will concede that there is a relatively small group of people with a particularly bitter and hateful attitude towards her, especially here on these forums.

"A relatively small group"?

Are fvcking kidding me? She's got like the highest negatives of any politition. It's been that way for a hellavu long time.

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
A brand-new Gallup survey has Hillary Clinton's positive/negative rating in the net negative territory (48%/51%).

Gallup says that Clinton's image has consistently moved into the negative territory as this campaign has progressed.

Link
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M0RPH
I will concede that there is a relatively small group of people with a particularly bitter and hateful attitude towards her, especially here on these forums.

"A relatively small group"?

Are fvcking kidding me? She's got like the highest negatives of any politition. It's been that way for a hellavu long time.

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
A brand-new Gallup survey has Hillary Clinton's positive/negative rating in the net negative territory (48%/51%).

Gallup says that Clinton's image has consistently moved into the negative territory as this campaign has progressed.

Link

Again, I ask you, if she is so hated then how is she leading in so many polls? It's a simple question, really. Let me know if you need me to break it down for you into even simpler terms.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M0RPH
I will concede that there is a relatively small group of people with a particularly bitter and hateful attitude towards her, especially here on these forums.

"A relatively small group"?

Are fvcking kidding me? She's got like the highest negatives of any politition. It's been that way for a hellavu long time.

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
A brand-new Gallup survey has Hillary Clinton's positive/negative rating in the net negative territory (48%/51%).

Gallup says that Clinton's image has consistently moved into the negative territory as this campaign has progressed.

Link

That link's from May 2007. In the SC primary poll here she actually has a lower unfavorable rating than Obama http://www.mcclatchydc.com/sta...f/poll/012408scdem.pdf


RECOGNIZE RECOGNIZE RECOGNIZE DON'T
FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE NEUTRAL RECOGNIZE
Barack Obama 63% 15% 22% -
Hillary Clinton 57% 14% 29% -
John Edwards 54% 16% 28% 2%

But I'll grant you generally the trend seems to be much less favorable in terms of her high unfavorable rating nationwide, but I think that changes on election day when its down to her or a republican.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Sirjonk, you're being intellectually dishonest ;)

Look at national figures. Hillary's negative rating has hovered at or just above/below the 50% mark for almost a year. The highest I saw it was 51%, the lowest 46%.

Any way you wish to spin it, half this country hates her. And that number appears stuck.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M0RPH
I will concede that there is a relatively small group of people with a particularly bitter and hateful attitude towards her, especially here on these forums.

"A relatively small group"?

Are fvcking kidding me? She's got like the highest negatives of any politition. It's been that way for a hellavu long time.

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
A brand-new Gallup survey has Hillary Clinton's positive/negative rating in the net negative territory (48%/51%).

Gallup says that Clinton's image has consistently moved into the negative territory as this campaign has progressed.

Link

Again, I ask you, if she is so hated then how is she leading in so many polls? It's a simple question, really. Let me know if you need me to break it down for you into even simpler terms.

Morph, all you're doing is ignoring the Gallup poll.

If respected third party data is gonna be ignored by you, I really don't think anything I have to personally say is gonna make a difference.

Fern