Wall Street Journal freaks out about Trump; endorses Hillary
In a new opinion piece The Wall Street Journal calls Hillary Clinton The Conservative Hope. Amazing news coming from the most conservative mainstream business oriented publication in US.
.
Trump totally freaks out the Rupert Murdoch owned, historically republican supporting publication. In their editorial Bret Stephens writes himself into a word pretzel trying to distract his reader by spinning about Trump's character and comportment and tries to hide his real concerns. But, he lets his real fears slip out in the paragraph below:
Conservatives are also supposed to believe that it’s folly to put hope before experience; that leopards never change their spots. So what’s with the magical thinking that, nomination in hand, Mr. Trump will suddenly pivot to magnanimity and statesmanship? Where’s the evidence that, as president, Mr. Trump will endorse conservative ideas on tax, trade, regulation, welfare, social, judicial or foreign policy, much less personal comportment?
Yep, it's all about the money, that's why the Journal is supporting Hillary. Hillary is a sure thing to support conservative ideas on tax, trade, regulation, welfare and foreign policy.
I'm not the only progressive not to be fooled by Bret Stephens editorial; Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, gives his analysis of the Journal endorsement in his own fired up style in video below:
[video:https://youtu.be/_DIsPSVZ2-M width:500 height:300]
Comments
With the support of all these Establishment Republican
people and institutions, I think it's safe to say that Clinton is the Establishment Republican candidate.
So much for more and better Dems, GOS!
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Better, naturally, for
the 1%, of whom Markos is a recently-inducted lifetime Member.
One wonders how many TOPlacers are as well?
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
This just validates that voting for Trump is the lesser evil
Trump and Clinton are
equally evil. There is no "lesser". Evil is evil.
If not Bernie, then the Green Party and Jill Stein get my vote. IMO, those are the only Progressive choices.
Please help the Resilience Resource Library grow by adding your links.
First Nations News
I could
vote for Jill Stein.
Even if he is unelectable one of the reasons its dangerous to vote for Donald Trump is that people in the future are going to use the number of votes he gets to indicate how much there is for fascism in the US. And that is abolutely what he represents. Its the crowd he has behind him. The connections drawn between him and Hitler and Mussolini are point by point correct. He appeals to exactly the same people, and says exactly the same things.
I think that its very important that people who can't live with Hillary Clinton find a way to make a statement after the general election, maybe online. Make it clear that you are saying no to Clinton, but not allowing that opinion to be represented as part of some right wing ideology that blames whats wrong in this country on Muslims or Mexicans.
Evil
Hillary is a warmonger, fracker, corrupt, two faced liar. Crooked is an excellent preface to Hillary and Bill. Trump has not been a supporter of endless war and the attendant death and destruction. I see no equality there.
I briefly met a convicted
pedophile who has not been a supporter of endless war and the attendant death and destruction.
Should I write his name in?
Cellmate?
I really
think you might want to get the derangement syndrome under control.
I agree with you about Clinton, but this isn't a binary thing. In order to hate Hillary Clinton, you don't have to like Trump. You can admit he's awful too, really.
We ought to be able to say that she is awful, and still admit that having a guy whose followers beat up protesters probably shouldn't get our support either.
If my saying that makes you want to suggest I belong in jail then have fun with that.
Humor is your friend
Doubt that your pedophile story is true.
I meet all the best people
here at the Santa Fe Inn. Convicted pedophiles, the odd person convicted for assault and battery, and me. Also a few college students. Everybody is broke these days.
I'm moving out, thank god.
Ummmm...
no.
Trump. Is. Lying. About. Having. Publicly. Opposed. The. Iraq. War.
Please help the Resilience Resource Library grow by adding your links.
First Nations News
Well, the right wing doesn't hate him because he's a racist
or because he's in favor of torture, that's for sure. They honestly fear he's going to cost them money. That is all they care about.
Twain Disciple
The Barbarian!
Off With His Head!
Am I the only one who finds this news (about Hillary) LOL funny?
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons - For thou art crunchy and good with ketchup
This would make a great campaign ad.
WSJ endorses Hillary Clinton because she supports conservative ideas on tax, trade, regulation, welfare, social, judicial and foreign policy.
Wow, just wow. How can any Democrat worthy of the name be for Clinton?
"How can any Democrat ..." ...
Easy!
Just claim that H welcomes any support but does not necessarily agree with the reasons for the endorsement.
I've seen that rationalisation @ TOP many a time.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Stephens editorial should--if it come to that--
give people a dozen more reasons to vote Trump over Clinton. Just like the writer says, they KNOW what HRC will do (keep the moneyed interests in power), and they are apparently afraid that Trump will be more liberal.
On a side note, I have noticed in the past that WSJ tends to have more balanced coverage on Sanders than most "liberal" outlets. Very possibly it comes from them currently not seeing him as a threat due to the establishment stranglehold on the voting system, or maybe they have just buried their heads in the sand like so many others.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
I think it’s because businessfolk rely on it to make decisions
and look down the road to assess the probability of future developments.
So unlike most MSM (and basically all of the other Murdoch-owned media including National Geographic), when it comes to the accuracy of their reporting, for many of their readers real money is on the line. Such readers pay attention to the WSJ’s track record. Mislead them and the WSJ can quickly ruin its own reputation, especially now that the paper is Murdoch-owned and people are scrutinizing it for signs of heavy-handed ideological meddling.
Makes Perfect Sense
On all but a handful of social issues, Hillary Clinton's views align perfectly with mainstream neocon Republican policy positions favored by the WSJ, and exemplified by someone like Dick Cheney. No surprise that Cheney himself, as well as other neocon stalwarts like Robert Kagan, Max Boot and Henry Kissinger have all lavished praise on Madame Secretary.
Trump, on the other hand, is one of those troublesome fringe right-wingers who used to populate groups like the John Birch Society, but now increasingly hold the balance of power in the modern Republican Party. The old schoolers don't trust them due to perceived isolationist and populist (pro-working class) tendencies. So expect a lot of Bush/Cheney style Republicans to line up behind Hillary.
I think this is likely to be the "choice" offered up by our vaunted two-party system for the foreseeable future - a Democratic candidate of the hard right vs. a Republican of the harder right. Would love to see Bernie upset the apple cart, but if the Clinton-ites prevail it's likely they will make it that much harder for any upstart candidates to challenge the status quo in the future.
inactive account
Not surprised at all
Clinton and WSJ are very close politics and econwise - Granted Clinton is to the WSJ's right on FP and bombing brown people but I'm sure that the paper's owners and editorial team didn't lose too much sleep over that.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
What's good for Ratheon...
bombing brown people is good for Wall Street. Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman. Lotsa red on that cabbage.
You keep using that word...
Watch GOS proudly proclaim how the
Wall Street Urinal endorcement is a positive.
Glad to see the Cenk video....
When the conservative right thinks Hillary is a more reliable ally, pretty much says it all.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Is it too late
for the Kerry "flip-flops"
riding a sail-board?
Murodch To Host Another Hillary Fund Raiser?
Actually, he's already helped her more than once:
CBS News May 9, 2006 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rupert-murdoch-loves-hillary-clinton/
Anyone remember how that worked out?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12762092/ns/politics/t/murdoch-fund-raiser-cli...
That comment could be recycled during this election.
Meanwhile, Murdoch's daughter Elizabeth had held a fund raiser for *-SHOCK!-* *-GASP!-* THE COMMIE MUSLIM FASCIST FROM KENYA! IN LONDON!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1954519/Elizabeth-Murdoch-hosts-Barack-O...
That's a lot of Murdoch action in support of those anti-business liberal Democrats in 2008, and it looks like again in 2016. Makes this already strange election even stranger!
edited for typo
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Funny Thing...
I recently made someone nuts by referring to HRC as "the best republican candidate for pres in decades".
I should send them the link to the WSJ endorsement, and watch their heads implode.
Just another refugee from the Daily Chaos.
DO IT!
I love it when the smug get outraged and then exceed the containment pressures of their thick skulls!
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
WSJ editorial is behind a pay wall. What did they say about
Hill other than she's the conservative hope? Did they say she's reliably in their pocket or any variation thereof?
Trump sure would be worse on personal comportment. I'll give them that one!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
watch the vid
Cenk nails it.
You keep using that word...
It’s not negative impact on Mexicans or Muslims worrying the WSJ
It’s the negative impact of higher taxes on the so-called Masters of the Universe and their money.