The Atlantic Magazine's Rare Political Endorsement

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,936
10,826
147
For only the third time in its 159 year history, The Atlantic (a great magazine, btw) has been moved to make a political endorsement, Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

The other two were Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Lyndon Johnson, 53 years ago, in 1964.

Of Lincoln they wrote, “It is in a moral aversion to slavery as a great wrong that the chief strength of the Republican party lies.”

Of Lyndon Johnson they wrote that he would bring, " to the vexed problem of civil rights a power of conciliation which will prevent us from stumbling down the road taken by South Africa.”

But what also moved them to endorse Johnson in 1964 was their deep distrust and dislike of Goldwater's positions:

“His proposal to let field commanders have their choice of the smaller nuclear weapons would rupture a fundamental belief that has existed from Abraham Lincoln to today: the belief that in times of crisis the civilian authority must have control over the military.” And the magazine noted that Goldwater’s “preference to let states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia enforce civil rights within their own borders has attracted the allegiance of Governor George Wallace, the Ku Klux Klan, and the John Birchers.”

They went on to say:

We think it unfortunate that Barry Goldwater takes criticism as a personal affront; [sound familiar?] we think it poisonous when his anger betrays him into denouncing what he calls the “radical” press by bracketing the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Izvestia. [again, sound familiar?] There speaks not the reason of the Southwest but the voice of Joseph McCarthy. We do not impugn Senator Goldwater’s honesty. We sincerely distrust his factionalism and his capacity for judgment.

Today they have endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.

And had this to say about The Donald:

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number—in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater’s 1964 campaign—of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate’s own party have publicly renounced him. Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy. In one of the more sordid episodes in modern American politics, Trump made himself the face of the so-called birther movement, which had as its immediate goal the demonization of the country’s first African American president. Trump’s larger goal, it seemed, was to stoke fear among white Americans of dark-skinned foreigners. He succeeded wildly in this; the fear he has aroused has brought him one step away from the presidency.

And, finally:

"We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent."

Hear, hear, good sirs! In defense of our American democracy, I, too, will be voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,299
31,349
136
Just another example of the corrupt lamestream media conspiring to thwart the will of "REAL AMERICANS". Every online poll has Trump winning the election by at least 123 points and taking every state except kaliforniastan (freaking libtards). Hillary is going to go down faster than Rosie O'Donnell on a taco.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Trump supporters should seriously consider not voting anymore.

You guys and your attitude are probably counterproductive in your stared objective of convincing potential Trump voters not to do so.
 

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
761
415
136
Someone who actually votes for Trump on November 8 is beyond convincing.

My in-laws are for Trump because of the Supreme Court. As long as a candidate would appoint a judge to overturn Roe v. Wade there is nothing a Republican candidate could do or say that would convince them to not vote for him.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,936
10,826
147
You guys and your attitude are probably counterproductive in your stared objective of convincing potential Trump voters not to do so.
None of us have any "shared objective" of convincing potential Trump voters not to do so. We're not stupid. THEY are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
some how Obama having close to zero experience in government wasn't a problem 8 years ago.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
F



Hear, hear, good sirs! In defense of our American democracy, I, too, will be voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Hilary only cares about Hilary. She doesn't care about democracy. What kind of democracy is ruled by 2 families?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
None of us have any "shared objective" of convincing potential Trump voters not to do so. We're not stupid. THEY are.

I see you're still in the "anger" phase of stages of grief that Clinton is a terrible enough candidate that she might lose this.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
some how Obama having close to zero experience in government wasn't a problem 8 years ago.

Yep, a 3 X State Senator and US Senator with a Juris Doctor Magna Cum Laude from Harvard had no experience in government prior to running for POTUS.

clRHu8T.gif
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I see you are blithering again.

Confident people don't seize on every endorsement like a dying man to a raft. Or go around trumpeting about how those potentially persuadable voters are stupid, etc. Hell, Reagan voted for Anderson on his way to beating Carter.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Confident people don't seize on every endorsement like a dying man to a raft. Or go around trumpeting about how those potentially persuadable voters are stupid, etc. Hell, Reagan voted for Anderson on his way to beating Carter.

No one is seizing on anything.

Just looks like news to me.

"You can lead a horse to water" etc,etc.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,299
31,349
136
No one is seizing on anything.

Just looks like news to me.

Its Glenn he has some need to be contrarian about everything. There could be a thread about the sky being blue here and he would somehow start arguing about liberals and the sky not being really blue because its cloudy where he is and its the liberals fault.

I honestly don't know what the guy believes because he seems to just want to argue the opposite of what ever while blaming liberals.
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,760
16,110
146
Hilary only cares about Hilary. She doesn't care about democracy. What kind of democracy is ruled by 2 families?
some how Obama having close to zero experience in government wasn't a problem 8 years ago.

raw


Oh and you're right, Obama didn't have a lot of prior experience. Yet he still managed to easily win the nomination. Trump doesn't have any experience and has almost no chance of winning.

Guess it must be due to something other than experience. I wonder what it might be?

:hmm:
 
Last edited:

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Oh and you're right, Obama didn't have a lot of prior experience. Yet he still managed to easily win the nomination. Trump doesn't have any experience and has almost no chance of winning.

Guess it must be due to something other than experience. I wonder what it might be?

:hmm:
so experience only matters when a republican is running.

Otherwise its not important.

Libs might need government to explain that double standard to them, otherwise it flies right over their heads.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Someone who actually votes for Trump on November 8 is beyond convincing.

My in-laws are for Trump because of the Supreme Court. As long as a candidate would appoint a judge to overturn Roe v. Wade there is nothing a Republican candidate could do or say that would convince them to not vote for him.
Ask your in-laws if they are against a constitutionally recognized right of privacy, for that is the core holding of Roe v. Wade.. The abortion holding was a secondary aspect, application of that right of privacy against government intrusion into a woman's rights of privacy regarding her body. Your in-laws probably believe life begins at conception and ignore the concept of viability, not all of us subscribe to that religious belief nor want it imposed upon all without regard for their beliefs.

Personally I think the right to privacy is even more significant now than it was in the early seventies as it is so much easier now to intrude upon that right.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
As Ezra Klein at Vox has been saying, it's not D vs R this year, it's Normal vs Abnormal. When century old conservative publications start endorsing the opposition party for the first time, it's time for a gut check.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,299
31,349
136
Ask your in-laws if they are against a constitutionally recognized right of privacy, for that is the core holding of Roe v. Wade.. The abortion holding was a secondary aspect, application of that right of privacy against government intrusion into a woman's rights of privacy regarding her body. Your in-laws probably believe life begins at conception and ignore the concept of viability, not all of us subscribe to that religious belief nor want it imposed upon all without regard for their beliefs.

Personally I think the right to privacy is even more significant now than it was in the early seventies as it is so much easier now to intrude upon that right.

Seriously a great post.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Ask your in-laws if they are against a constitutionally recognized right of privacy, for that is the core holding of Roe v. Wade.. The abortion holding was a secondary aspect, application of that right of privacy against government intrusion into a woman's rights of privacy regarding her body. Your in-laws probably believe life begins at conception and ignore the concept of viability, not all of us subscribe to that religious belief nor want it imposed upon all without regard for their beliefs.

Personally I think the right to privacy is even more significant now than it was in the early seventies as it is so much easier now to intrude upon that right.

Yeah, helluva lot of good that "right to privacy" is doing when the NSA is hoovering up every conversation and you can't store or email a file without a government analyst being able to see it.