Romney in 2012 - Clinton in 2016. Houston Chronicle endorses HRC

[Yssup Rider]

This lays it out in easy to understand language. Point by point.

I don't expect this to change anyone's mind in here. But THIS explains why Drumpf cannot be elected POTUS. Cannot!


http://www.chron.com/opinion/recomme...on-8650345.php

These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board endorses Hillary Clinton
Copyright 2016: Houston Chronicle Updated 3:01 pm, Friday, July 29, 2016

On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.

Her opponent

The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.

Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.

It's telling that so many Republicans have distanced themselves from their party's nominee. That sizeable list includes a number of prominent Texans, Bush family members foremost among them, as well as Sen. Cruz and House Speaker Joe Straus. These stalwart Republicans are concerned not only about the future of their party (and, with the exception of the two Bush presidents, their own political careers), but, more important, they're concerned about the future of this nation.

It would not be surprising to discover that these experienced politicians and public servants share the existential concern that first lady Michelle Obama raised in her powerful speech on behalf of Clinton at the party convention in Philadelphia: "Because when you have the nuclear codes at your fingertips and the military at your command, you can't make snap decisions. You can't have a thin skin or a tendency to lash out. You need to be steady and measured and well-informed."

Experience

Americans know Hillary Clinton; post-Philadelphia, they're even better acquainted with "the real Hillary Clinton," as her husband phrased it. After her quarter century and more in the public eye, they know her strengths and her weaknesses. Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to her experience as first lady, as U.S. senator, as secretary of state and as candidate for president will have at least a general notion of her positions on the issues. As President Obama noted, she's the most qualified person in years to serve as president - "and that includes Bill and me." The only candidate to come close is George H.W. Bush.

Whether voters like her personally is almost irrelevant at this "moment of reckoning," to use Clinton's words. She herself concedes that she's not a natural campaigner. She lacks Obama's oratorical gifts or her husband's folksy ability to connect with crowds. Too often she comes across as calculated, inauthentic. We're confident that she is, indeed, "steady and measured and well-informed" and that she would be a much better president than a presidential candidate.

The issues

On the issues, there's no comparison in terms of thoughtfulness, thoroughness and practicality. Acknowledging the influence of erstwhile competitor Bernie Sanders, for example, she will focus as president on repairing an economy that has left many working people behind and struggling. She will address income inequality and wage stagnation and will work to create jobs. She'll work with Congress to end tax loopholes, noting as she did on CBS's "Sixty Minutes" last weekend that an executive shouldn't be paying the same tax rate as his secretary. She also will push for equal pay for women, increasing the minimum wage and expanding tax credits for poorer families.

Immigration reform

Rejecting the ridiculous border-wall notion her opponent famously touts, she'll push for comprehensive immigration reform, building on a sensible plan that passed the U.S. Senate three years ago, only to be held hostage by a rump group of tea-party opponents in the House. She has said she intends within the first 100 days of her administration to introduce a path for the undocumented among us to earn citizenship.

Health care

Health care has been a decades-long issue for Clinton, at least since her days as the first lady of her adopted state of Arkansas. As first lady in the White House a few years later, her failed health initiative led to the creation of CHIP, the immensely successful children's health insurance program. She will work to improve the Affordable Care Act, not abolish it.

Energy

On energy, an issue of importance to Houston, she acknowledges the seriousness of climate change, the most "consequential, urgent, sweeping" problem the world faces. She has said she wants the United States to be the "clean energy superpower of the 21st century."

She also acknowledges that clean-energy reforms will result in economic casualties, among them the coal industry. She has proposed a $30 billion plan to revitalize communities where coal production is in decline and, as Bill Clinton mentioned in his convention speech last week, she intends to dispatch him to West Virginia to help struggling families and communities build a viable economic future.

Hillary Clinton has said she sees natural gas as a bridge fuel and foresees a new economy built on rapidly increasing shares of renewable energy. She has a record of supporting fracking, and she supports the Paris agreement on climate change.

Foreign affairs

On trade, another vital Houston issue, we have our differences with the Democrat. Although she now says she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal we support, we're confident she will be adept at negotiating deals that would grow wages and jobs and that would protect American workers. Despite his vaunted deal-making claims, her opponent, we suspect, would be lost at sea trying to meet the nation's trade goals.

On foreign affairs, the former secretary of state is knowledgeable, dependable and trusted worldwide, unlike her blusterous opponent whose outrageous remarks last week about Russia were merely the most recent bizarre outburst to unsettle our allies. Needless to say, Clinton supports NATO, unlike Trump who, in the words of columnist Timothy Egan, "now stands ready to repudiate nearly 70 years of security for our European allies under an 'America First' banner. ."

Temperament

We could go on with issues, including her plans for sensible gun safety and for combatting terrorism - her policy positions are laid out in detail on her campaign web site - but issues in this election are almost secondary to questions of character and trustworthiness. We reject the "cartoon version" of Hillary Clinton (again to borrow her husband's phrase) in favor of a presidential candidate who has the temperament, the ability and the experience to lead this nation.

These are unsettling times, even if they're not the dark, dystopian end times that Trump lays out. They require a steady hand. That's not Donald Trump.

The times also require a person who envisions a hopeful future for this nation, a person who has faith in the strong, prosperous and confident America we hope to bequeath our children and grandchildren, as first lady Michelle Obama so eloquently envisioned in Philadelphia. That's not Donald Trump's America.

It is Hillary Clinton's, who reminded her listeners Thursday night that "When there are no ceilings, the sky's the limit."

America's first female president would be in the Oval Office more than a century and a half after a determined group of women launched the women's suffrage movement, almost a century after women in this country won the right to vote. It's a milestone, to be sure. Few could have imagined it would be so consequential.

[CuteOldGuy]

Do you think that will make any difference, AssupPartisanHack? An Establishment newspaper supports the Establishment candidate. Big news!

[Yssup Rider]

Well it was only a matter of who would be the first to post THAT type of response.

I shoulda posted a poll...

Be that as it may, thinking, patriotic Americans will be trumpeting this logic in hope that angry white men like you won't cut off their own dicks to spite their assholes.

[CuteOldGuy]

I'm only angry with people who say it's not ok to lie, then support the biggest liar in the race, like you, AssupHypocrite.

[Guest123018-4]

I am a subscriber to the rag and I always read everything with a filter to try and get the story without the obvious bias.
The Chronicle is so far left it surprised me when they endorsed Romeny but he was still left of center which was why he could not beat Obama. Well that was one of the reasons.

For them to endorse Hillary does not surprise me at all.
They expect their candidates to by lying thieves and they are following that path.

I would not vote for Hillary for any public office knowing her character and total disdain for our Constitution and laws.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm only angry with people who say it's not ok to lie, then support the biggest liar in the race, like you, AssupHypocrite.

You can't make a single good argument in favor of Drimpf.

So you assail the paper. You assail me. And you post lies about both.

Start a poll.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You can't make a single good argument in favor of Drimpf.

So you assail the paper. You assail me. And you post lies about both.

Start a poll.

He's not Hillary. That's good enough for me. And he takes our borders more seriously than any other candidate. I also like his foreign policy, insofar as we start getting paid for protecting the world. And since he comes from an industry where coming in on time and under budget is rewarded, maybe he can deal with the bureaucracy.

And the paper is a liberal rag, and you are a partisan hack. Assail away!

[Yssup Rider]

He wants our allies to pay protection money. And you're with him.

Excellent.

Now we know more about what kind of heart beats in that manbreasted chest of yours.

Like the good reverend said -- we need to be America's moral defibrillator!

[Jackie S]

The Houston Chronicle??? I canceled my subscription that liberal Rag years ago.

I'm surprised they are still around.

[Yssup Rider]

Me too.

Interwebs, right?

You hear things? Good things? About the interwebs.

How about that Twittering thing?

YUGE!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Do you think that will make any difference, AssupPartisanHack? An Establishment newspaper supports the Establishment candidate. Big news!

Hahahahaha..............Oh these Liberals think they have a big star.


Jim

[IIFFOFRDB]

After the next 3 months a good portion of the news papers and TV stations will go out of business, Thanks DJT!

[Yssup Rider]

Wtf does that mean, you rotten fuck?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Hahahahaha..............Oh these Liberals think they have a big star.


Jim

I like your new avatar, Jim


Yes Sir, That's First Class!


fuckem!

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He wants our allies to pay protection money. And you're with him.

Excellent.

Now we know more about what kind of heart beats in that manbreasted chest of yours.

Like the good reverend said -- we need to be America's moral defibrillator!

You are an idiot. Protection money is what you pay the mob so they don't hurt you. These countries want us to protect them from other countries, and not pay for the service. In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have the money to protect everyone. Our debt is $19 trillion and increasing. Meanwhile, not only do we defend these countries for free, we send a lot of money to our service people and support staff, which they use to enrich the economy of that country. It's about damn time they started covering some or all of the cost of defending them. Russia is not going to invade anybody on Trump's watch because he's just crazy enough to retaliate. Hillary is weak. Russia could take over Europe on her watch, and she'll just keep handing out favors to Goldmann Sachs and her other owners.


I wish you had a brain. You might be fun to talk to. But you're just a lying, partisan hack.