Washington Post Doesn't like Trump

[KMFJD]

Donald Trump 'a danger to the nation and the world'

DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d823cc-4f4f-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html

Isn't this a change from the normal as well, a big newspaper editorializing against a candidate months instead of just days before election time?

 

[thraashman]

Anyone with common sense and humanity doesn't like Trump.

 

[michal1980]

the sky is falling the sky is falling.

 

[Perknose]

Isn't this a change from the normal as well, a big newspaper editorializing against a candidate months instead of just days before election time?

No, it isn't. You are confusing general editorials, which can state reasons to be for or against anyone or anything, and can even be written by outsiders to the paper's staff but hosted by that paper, with the formal entire editorial board's collective endorsement of one candidate for President, which generally does come far closer to the election itself.

Oops, my bad. This is the entire editorial board.

 

[Blackjack200]

No, it isn't. You are confusing general editorials, which can state reasons to be for or against anyone or anything, and can even be written by outsiders to the paper's staff but hosted by that paper, with the formal entire editorial board's collective endorsement of one candidate for President, which generally does come far closer to the election itself.

Reading that article, it looks like the latter, published 3+ months ahead of the election. The byline is the entire editorial board.

 

[yllus]

the sky is falling the sky is falling.

With the candidate in question, worries about the sky falling seem entirely reasonable.

 

[Strk]

Looks like the editorial section

 

[Perknose]

Reading that article, it looks like the latter, published 3+ months ahead of the election. The byline is the entire editorial board.

Yeah, I missed that part. This is unusual. While the an entire editorial board, i.e., formally, THE PAPER, will sometimes weigh in on a tragedy and also to endorse a candidate, this is the board formally weighing in to warn against a candidate.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yeah, I missed that part. This is unusual. While the an entire editorial board, i.e., formally, THE PAPER, will sometimes weigh in on a tragedy and also to endorse a candidate, this is the board formally weighing in to warn against a candidate.

And they're right. And so is the New Yorker. But let's not lose sight of the real issue here: A DNC staffer said a mean thing about Bernie Sanders.

 

[hal2kilo]

And they're right. And so is the New Yorker. But let's not lose sight of the real issue here: A DNC staffer said a mean thing about Bernie Sanders.

Seriously, these peoples motivation was never to vote for Hillary in the first place and had no political leanings apparently. If you can switch from being a left wing progressive to fuck Hillary, I'm voting for Trump. Then you really have no political compass and are just bitching. Politics, when the rubber hits the road, is about winning, just like sports. And being a "splitter" will get you nothing.

 

[Moonbeam]

And they're right. And so is the New Yorker. But let's not lose sight of the real issue here: A DNC staffer said a mean thing about Bernie Sanders.

Can't one deal with each issue separately at whatever level of relevance one wants to assign to it? How does the existence of a major problem negate the existence of lesser ones and who decides which are which? I think people are capable of managing more than a single concern.

 

[Jhhnn]

Seriously, these peoples motivation was never to vote for Hillary in the first place and had no political leanings apparently. If you can switch from being a left wing progressive to fuck Hillary, I'm voting for Trump. Then you really have no political compass and are just bitching. Politics, when the rubber hits the road, is about winning, just like sports. And being a "splitter" will get you nothing.

It will if you can split the opposition with enough concern trolling.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can't one deal with each issue separately at whatever level of relevance one wants to assign to it? How does the existence of a major problem negate the existence of lesser ones and who decides which are which? I think people are capable of managing more than a single concern.

Are they capable of putting it in perspective, of evaluating what's really more important?

The answer to that is in the CBD/LBD divide you cite quite often. Conservatives can easily be brought to zero in on & exaggerate the importance of the picayune, every time.

 

[Blackjack200]

Can't one deal with each issue separately at whatever level of relevance one wants to assign to it? How does the existence of a major problem negate the existence of lesser ones and who decides which are which? I think people are capable of managing more than a single concern.

Precisely. I hope that all of this Trump nonsense about banning Muslims and building walls doesn't distract us from issues of true importance like the location of an email server or how much someone's Armani jacket cost.

 

[Moonbeam]

Precisely. I hope that all of this Trump nonsense about banning Muslims and building walls doesn't distract us from issues of true importance like the location of an email server or how much someone's Armani jacket cost.

You weren't talking about Armani jackets a moment ago but tried, unfairly, I believe, to minimize an issue with vastly more significance than you implies.A DNC staffer said a mean thing about Bernie Sanders:

"A DNC staffer said a mean thing about Bernie Sanders."

The issue was far larger and more pervasive than that. The evidence is that the party elites worked to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination. I believe the real issue is that the party establishment is the reason Democrats can't win. They tied themselves to the money of the wealthy and people are hurting because we have as a result lost out democracy. I am rather sad that you minimize what I think is the real issue and more so out of justifying it out of fear that Trump will win. I think he may because Democrats can't face reality. Now was the completely and totally wrong time to nominate Clinton no matter how great one's emotional attachment might be. You simply use walls and banning Muslims to blind yourself to morality, in my opinion. This is what I would expect from a conservative, but it is after all, fear driven.

 

[Blackjack200]

You weren't talking about Armani jackets a moment ago but tried, unfairly, I believe, to minimize an issue with vastly more significance than you implies. A DNC staffer said a mean thing about Bernie Sanders:

"A DNC staffer said a mean thing about Bernie Sanders."

The issue was far larger and more pervasive than that. The evidence is that the party elites worked to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination. I believe the real issue is that the party establishment is the reason Democrats can't win. They tied themselves to the money of the wealthy and people are hurting because we have as a result lost out democracy. I am rather sad that you minimize what I think is the real issue and more so out of justifying it out of fear that Trump will win. I think he may because Democrats can't face reality. Now was the completely and totally wrong time to nominate Clinton no matter how great one's emotional attachment might be. You simply use walls and banning Muslims to blind yourself to morality, in my opinion. This is what I would expect from a conservative, but it is after all, fear driven.

You say the evidence is that the party elites worked to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination, but I do not share that view. I see a couple of stupid, irresponsible emails.

I would like to know what specific actions the DNC took to sabotage Sanders's candidacy. BTW, this response took an hour because I was searching online for something I may have missed, but I don't think I've missed anything. What we're talking about here is a couple of stolen emails, cherry picked as the most damning out of 19,000, that show a couple of people thinking about ways to help Clinton or hurt Sanders.

I'm disappointed that you think I'm minimizing a real issue out of fear that Trump will win. I do fear that, but my fear of what Trump might do is dwarfed by my horror at what I have already seen out of his supporters. The awful, ugly things they scream for. None of that changes if 51% of the country votes for Hillary Clinton.

 

[bozack]

the post has always been pretty obvious in their leanings so no surprise here.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Anyone with common sense and humanity doesn't like Trump.

this.

sadly, that means a lot of people don't have either

 

[Moonbeam]

You say the evidence is that the party elites worked to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination, but I do not share that view. I see a couple of stupid, irresponsible emails.

I would like to know what specific actions the DNC took to sabotage Sanders's candidacy. BTW, this response took an hour because I was searching online for something I may have missed, but I don't think I've missed anything. What we're talking about here is a couple of stolen emails, cherry picked as the most damning out of 19,000, that show a couple of people thinking about ways to help Clinton or hurt Sanders.

I'm disappointed that you think I'm minimizing a real issue out of fear that Trump will win. I do fear that, but my fear of what Trump might do is dwarfed by my horror at what I have already seen out of his supporters. The awful, ugly things they scream for. None of that changes if 51% of the country votes for Hillary Clinton.

Progressives and news papers have looked at the email evidence and determined there was a fix in for Sanders. They are, I believe, just as sure that the DNC conspired against democracy as the right is sure Clinton's emails show she is a criminal.

What I am pretty sure of is that what you have written off as cherry picking others see as sifting evidence for truth. How do we know who is lying to themselves? I do read there was more in the email than what you suggested, but I was willing to search the web for it.

For a long long time now, every time I hear somebody say that to see is to believe, I have known the real truth is that one must first believe to see, and that is a two edged sword. Progressives see conspiracy because they are emotionally prepared to believe it, they want something on which to place their anger. On the other hand the Clinton partisans may not see evidence that is there.

 

[werepossum]

By yet another astounding coincidence, the Washington Post was one of the "news" outlets caught conspiring with the DNC for Hillary's benefit.

 

[Moonbeam]

By yet another astounding coincidence, the Washington Post was one of the "news" outlets caught conspiring with the DNC for Hillary's benefit.

That claim is interesting enough that I wish you posted a link.

 

[werepossum]

That claim is interesting enough that I wish you posted a link.

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...y-clinton-lawyers-said-illegal-did-it-anyway/

Another rather Jaw-Dropping release within the latest WikiLeaks document dump of DNC emails outlines the planning for a joint fundraiser in September 2015.

Apparently, The Washington Post was hosting a party. The DNC saw the opportunity to make a fundraiser out of it and sell tickets to the party to donors. However, the email chain shows the lawyers for the DNC said they can’t publish the price for the tickets because the joint event would be illegal.

The Washington Post and DNC still held the joint event, they just never left a traceable paper trail (to outsiders) showing their combined efforts:

wikileaks 2

(LINK <–html format)


Great – we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

We are waiting

Jordan Kaplan
National Finance Director
Democratic National Committee
(202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
kaplanj@dnc.org

On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:


They aren’t going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.

Vote Hillary, 'cause laws are for little people.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Greg Sargent is the DNC's special shill into the WP, one example among multiple:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4681

Hi April, how is it possible that we're supposedly rolling this out today but we've seen no draft release, no timeline, and it's already 12:17 on a Friday. Is this happening? If so, can we please consider giving Sargent the first bite to get a good first story out there? Can I have him call you? We had been working him for weeks in general on writing up something positive, we think he'd play ball.

afaik it's not clear specifically what the story is, but at least on the 20th (the day something was set to be posted) Sargent published a puff-piece for Clinton, downplaying Sanders' recent victory in Oregon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-out-democrats-the-party-will-unify-probably/

 

[agent00f]

You weren't talking about Armani jackets a moment ago but tried, unfairly, I believe, to minimize an issue with vastly more significance than you implies.A DNC staffer said a mean thing about Bernie Sanders:

"A DNC staffer said a mean thing about Bernie Sanders."

The issue was far larger and more pervasive than that. The evidence is that the party elites worked to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination. I believe the real issue is that the party establishment is the reason Democrats can't win. They tied themselves to the money of the wealthy and people are hurting because we have as a result lost out democracy. I am rather sad that you minimize what I think is the real issue and more so out of justifying it out of fear that Trump will win. I think he may because Democrats can't face reality. Now was the completely and totally wrong time to nominate Clinton no matter how great one's emotional attachment might be. You simply use walls and banning Muslims to blind yourself to morality, in my opinion. This is what I would expect from a conservative, but it is after all, fear driven.

Just a heads up that despite public perception, Sander wasn't actually a democrat before this. So the primary was far more party insider vs outsider.

 

[jman19]

No one should be shocked WaPo doesn't like Trump. Though he is a tried and true dirtbag.