(Cosmopolitan) A day after endorsing Hillary Clinton for president – and hours before Clinton and Trump will face off in the first of three presidential debates – the New York Times has published an editorial warning Americans of the potentially disastrous consequences of a Donald Trump presidency. The Times, which on Sunday called Trump “the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history,” makes its case simply by presenting facts about Trump’s record: He has encouraged violence against his opponent, admires demagogue Vladimir Putin and advocates water boarding those suspected of committing terrorism, though it is an international war crime. Though he promotes the image of being a successful businessman, Trump has “a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures,” like Trump University, which is being investigated for fraud, and he may be in violation of U.S. tax law by taking over $250,000 from the Trump Foundation to pay for his own legal fees. Trump constantly contradicts himself and spreads misinformation, frequently disparages people of color, immigrants, and women, and supports xenophobic and racist policies like stop-and-frisk and a ban on Muslims.
As the Times writes, Trump will be an “agent of change,” but voters must ask themselves: of what kind?:
There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.
The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk” policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.
The Times is hoping to convince independents and undecided voters not only that a Trump presidency would be unfathomably bad for this country but that Clinton is uniquely well-qualified for the job. In Sunday’s endorsement of Clinton, the Times wrote:
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton – because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.
Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump.
The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.
A commenter named ‘voice of reason’ puts the stupidity of the NY Times and it’s endorsement of the Criminal Clit in perspective….
Wow – I love when the Clintonitis contingent, like the New York Times, come out to defend the druggie and prove how mentally defective they really are.The earth still rotating on its axis even though the NYT did not endorse Trump. Is anyone with working brain cells even slightly surprised. They are a libtard rag that is questionable for use to line bird cages or wrap fish at the fish mongers. Stupidity is contagious. One would not expect a libtard rag to support truth. They have never had a problem with subverting the truth to promote a Leftist agenda.Maybe the NYT’s feeble attempt to ridicule Trump for saying that the explosions in NYC and New Jersey were the result of bombs minutes after they occurred backfired on them. Trump did not need to be a Rhodes Scholar to state the obvious – most explosions are the direct result of the detonation of a bomb – two explosions happen pretty well simultaneously – pretty safe to assume that there were bombs involved. Not if you are a libtard I guess. Cause and effect is not a real strength of the Left.
Harder to swallow was the theory that Cuomo and de Blasio advanced that stray dogs farted in a back alley, the gas collected even though there was a breeze, and spontaneously ignited by some miracle. NYT did praise Cuomo and de Blasio for their foresight – or was that foreskin. Hard to tell with libtard rags – they do like to spin things just to spin them. Somehow attributing the explosions to random dog farts rather than a man-made bombs makes one wonder about what they have to offer in the way of news.Maybe the NYT feeble attempt to ridicule Trump for saying that he “would not be surprised if the bombs would be linked to Barry the Traitor’s religion of peace”. He did not accuse anyone. He was waiting for the evidence to unfold, but seeing that the bombs appeared to be coordinated since they went off so close together seemed to suggest to Trump that it might be another event from those at war with America. He did not accuse, but he did voice an opinion that he had suspicions about who was behind the events. Didn’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to recognize the obvious. All Trump had to do was admit the truth without a libtard spin. It took Hillary the Criminal nine hours to sober up enough from her recreational hallucinogenic drug cocktail to issue an erroneous statement that NYT purported to be the truth inviolate and then retract.At least, Hillary the Criminal did not overheat this time like she did at the 9-11 memorial. It takes a pretty low life-form to try and divert attention away from those who had lost so much for a selfish “look at me — look at me”.Donald Trump’s accuracy just proves one thing really. He can actually process events and information as things happen because he is not intoxicated on an exotic drug cocktail – don’t have to wait for him to sober up. Not the qualities obviously that NYT favors – then again they are proud supporters of Cuomo and de Blasio. Do we really need any more proof than that? If you see 5 or 6 dogs congregate on a street corner or back alley – run the other way.