Posted on 09/25/2016 7:01:45 AM PDT by dayglored
(Original title: Hillary Clinton would make a sober, smart and pragmatic president. Donald Trump would be a catastrophe.)
American voters have a clear choice on Nov. 8. We can elect an experienced, thoughtful and deeply knowledgeable public servant or a thin-skinned demagogue who is unqualified and unsuited to be president.
Donald J. Trump, a billionaire businessman and television personality, is the latt
er. He has never held elected office and has shown himself temperamentally unfit to do so. He has run a divisive, belligerent, dishonest campaign, repeatedly aligning himself with racists, strongmen and thugs while maligning or dismissing large segments of the American public. Electing Trump could be catastrophic for the nation.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton is one of the best prepared candidates to seek the presidency in many years. As a first lady, a Democratic senator from New York and secretary of State in President Obama’s first term, she immersed herself in the details of government, which is why her positions on the issues today are infinitely better thought-out than those of her opponent.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
These people must live on another planet.
L.A. Times BINGO
LATimes - part of the conspiracy that foisted the anti- American illegal immigrant into our WH. They are STILL suppressing the tape of O partying with and speaking to the Muslim Brotherhood type terrorist gang from before the 08 election !!
The left wing La La Times. Drunk, dumb and living in a fantasy world.
Sounds like they have been hanging out at 5th and Wall after work. (Skid Row, Junkie Heaven)
The sycophants that run their yaps at these Leftist excuses for newspapers are really laughable. No factual revelations whatsoever, just the predictable party line that everyone has come to expect. No wonder they now are at the bottom of the ranking of professions in terms of public respect.
I literally was just saying this morning that I was waiting for the LA Times and Washington Post to join the New York Times in endorsing Hillary. Sure enough. What’s taking the Washington Post so long? I don’t like it when papers endorse candidates. I think papers need to honestly report facts about candidates and let the people decide.
Don’t want to click the Link.
If anyone has, what are the Comments showing?
LATimes - part of the conspiracy that foisted the anti- American illegal immigrant into our WH.
_________________________________
The LA Times and many other rags just like it are totally in the tank for every anti-American initiative currently in operation around the world. Anyone who gets their news from these sources is being continuously indoctrinated for the purpose of undermining their perceptions of the USA.
I don't know, how much of that knowledge is left in Hillary Clinton's head (if it was ever there to begin with) if it got lost when she hit her head, the same way her "knowledge" of the handling of classified materials did?
When I lived in Downey the asshats in the LA Slimes Subscription Department would send me their paper about every 6 to 8 months; they would send it for about 2 or 3 weeks then send me a bill for a subscription.
I would always write them a note, thanking them for the free floor covering when I was painting, or housebreaking a new puppy.
I would then state that I was not interested in a subscription because I bought my toilet paper by the roll, not the folded sheet.
They kept that up for about 12 years before they finally got the hint and gave up on me.
“Hillary Clinton would make a sober, smart and pragmatic”
Except she’s a known drunk, with no evidence of intelligence, and swayed by bribes and graft.
Night is day, up is down, bad is good.
- Amendment 1:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I know that journalism is a biased. But there are reasons for the mess “the media” is and makes which do not implicate the Constitution. Least of all should we want to denigrate the First Amendment.Why is journalism “a bias?” Simple. Journalism has to claim that “all journalists are objective,” for the simple reason that it needs to trust - needs you to trust - reports transmitted over long distances and originated by people you nor I - nor even the editor of the paper printing the story - even knows. It’s not for any moral reason that there is some obligation on the part of any member of the public to believe journalism; it is strictly a business proposition to them. The AP newswire - any newswire - would be nearly worthless without the trust of the reader, promoted by the editor and all other journalists.
Membership in the AP is expensive, on the one hand, and a huge source of stories, on the other. It has to be promoted and exploited. In sum, journalism is united by the newswires (all of them; competition among news services does not change this fact). The AP “wire” is a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalists in America and, according to Adam Smith, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
So journalism is united around the conceit of its own objectivity, and yet journalists all know (“If it bleeds, it leads) that journalism is negative. Is negativity objective? If you think so, you are a cynic. And socialism is cynicism about society, and naivete about government:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.So our problem with respect to journalism is thatSociety in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.Very humanly, journalists want to be our “leaders and directors” - and yet their profession is profoundly corrupted by cynicism which inheres in it. We are Cassandra, seeing corruption in a predominant source of information while “The natural disposition” of our neighbors “is always to believe.”The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
If we can get an honest SCOTUS back, theoretically the Associated Press could be sued into oblivion. Because it is a monopoly - SCOTUS even held so in 1945 - and because the mission which made the AP “too big to fail” is no longer a significant issue. From its inception until the Internet era, the conservation of scarce and expensive news transmission bandwidth always seemed to justify the monopolistic implications of the AP. Now, such a suggestion would risk mockery.
And I have not even addressed the unconstitutional effects of the FCC and the FEC . . .
Hillary? SOBER? Compared to Trump who hasn’t had a drink in his life?
Agree. No need to read beyond that. Frankly, I think the L.A. Times as a sense of humor.
The next time Hillary Clinton is smart, sober and/or pragmatic will be the first.
She’s an idiotic, addled, radical ideologue.
And that’s not the worst of it. She’s also corrupt, venal, greedy, frail, hysterical, with a volcanic temper and a disconnection from reality which can be construed as a psychotic break.
Ask the Dallas Morning News, how their endorsement worked out for them!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.