• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination

Frank Apisa

Frank Apisa

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
14,102
Reaction score
3,919
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
New York Times Editorial Endorsement!

For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senateand once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.




http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/o...c=edit_na_20160130&nlid=35927693&ref=cta&_r=0
 
Sounds great to me. I think she is the best candidate out there at the moment...and I will happily vote for her.

The balance of the endorsement is worth a read.
 
Frank Apisa said:
New York Times Editorial Endorsement!

For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senateand once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
This is quite a vapid endorsement. Nothing specifically mentioning her accomplishments while in office because there aren't any. I expect this from a bunch of College Feminists who don't have any life experience but this is supposed to be a professional news paper. The mention of her being a woman is particularly vapid.
 
Is there anything more hypocritical than the party that inflicted Obama on America now complaining about presidential candidates not having any experience?
 
Last edited:
Ray410 said:
Is there anything more hypocritical than the party that inflicted Obama on America complaining about presidential candidates not having any experience?

This sort of delusional dishonesty is almost beyond belief.
Click to expand...

That is the New York Times opinion...not any political party.
 
TO EVERYONE:

I have reported this thread to the moderators myself. I think I may have gone against the forum rules by posting this here. It is an endorsement...which probably is considered an opinion piece or editorial.

Please give them a chance to withdraw it...or move it where it belongs.

I apologize for the error.
 
Frank Apisa said:
New York Times Editorial Endorsement!

For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senateand once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.




http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/o...c=edit_na_20160130&nlid=35927693&ref=cta&_r=0
Click to expand...

The NYTs has been a Clinton fluffing organ since 1992
 
Frank Apisa said:
TO EVERYONE:

I have reported this thread to the moderators myself. I think I may have gone against the forum rules by posting this here. It is an endorsement...which probably is considered an opinion piece or editorial.

Please give them a chance to withdraw it...or move it where it belongs.

I apologize for the error.
Click to expand...

I think the most prominent Democratic Party Mouthpiece in the USA endorsing the establishment Democratic Party choice isn't surprising but it is newsworthy
 
WIth the NYT endorsement, I think its safe to say that the 'fix' is pretty much in for Hillary as the dem nominee. Its been obvious since the beginning the game was rigged. Even Sanders could see that. What will be interesting to see is how those that are all in for Sanders will respond.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread moved as editorials do not belong in *BN*
 
Frank Apisa said:
New York Times Editorial Endorsement!

For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senateand once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/o...c=edit_na_20160130&nlid=35927693&ref=cta&_r=0
Click to expand...

By the time the nominating conventions begin, she will have withdrawn and will be fully occupied preparing her criminal defense and trying to negotiate a plea deal.
 
Jack Hays said:
By the time the nominating conventions begin, she will have withdrawn and will be fully occupied preparing her criminal defense and trying to negotiate a plea deal.
Click to expand...

Jeez...I hope not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom