50
votes
Donald Trump loathes our laws, puts self over country, and is dangerous for America. He is fully unfit to lead, writes the editorial board.
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Opinion | Donald Trump Is Unfit to Lead
- Published
- Jul 11 2024
- Word count
- 3621 words
I'll preface this by saying that I am forced to interact/work with a wide swath of "regular" people every single day due to the nature of my job. So I feel like I see a much larger cross section of society than most. I also have to talk to them for extended periods of time and about a wide swath of subjects.
I get why they wrote it, but this is going to change very few minds. Times have changed. The endorsement (or un-endorsement, as it were) of a newspaper - even a top-tier one like the New York Times - doesn't matter like it used to.
The people who are already going to vote for Trump are going to vote for him regardless of what the New York Times Editorial Board says. In fact, those people could care less what the NYT thinks.
The mythical mass of "undecided" voters (I'm not convinced that there are actually that many of them) aren't going to be swayed by the New York Times either. They are going to vote for the person they think will carry out their preferred ideological plan. A lot of these types of people I meet are just trying to decide if they can stomach Trump in order to get what they want in terms of conservative laws/a direction for the country.
It’s all about turnout: Democrats have a higher vote ceiling than Republicans.
Can you elaborate on what a vote ceiling is / what you meant by this? Googling for it gave me things about the debt ceiling.
Vote floor = minimum number of votes a party/candidate will always get.
Vote ceiling = maximum number of votes a party or candidate can get.
Trump has a high floor but low ceiling. Dems have a high(ish) ceiling, but a lower floor.
My read: Stable base vs fluctuating interest in bothering to vote at all.
Thanks for clarifying!
Sometimes I wonder if the mythical undecided voter is just a red herring to keep people whose city/district/state doesn't go the way they expect from realizing they have been disenfranchised because the districts are gerrymandered to hell and back.
I'm really quite disappointed in the comments on this post. It seems that very time an NYT article is posted, all the comments are about how crappy the NYT is and that they have no integrity and are ruining the election in the search for profit, but then when the editorial board puts out their most strongly-worded article yet expressing exactly what people keep saying the NYT needs to declare, there is only one comment calling it disingenuous and one comment just addressing the article on the surface level?
What happened to everyone who whines on every NYT post, the people saying this is too little too late, the people expressing gratitude that the NYT is finally saying what they think its duty obligates it to say, etc?
It seems that even on Tildes, whining about supposed clickbait leads to more engagement than posts about what people say they want. Has the outrage porn overload on reddit infected Tildes as well?
Honestly, I think that responsibility is on the people posting the clickbait. It's just human psychology. I don't think this editorial says anything new or will matter to anyone who has already made up their minds.
Donald Trump's administration will be devastating should he get the chance to have another one. I am seeing Sen Vance talking about finding the Marxists in the government and separating them from the humans as if those are the two categories. I'm reading Project 2025 discourse and I'd like not to see the whole country collapse in the next 4 years. But what else is there to say?
Anyone think that the NYT is trying to throw people off from it sinking in that they are biased against President Biden and the democrats? Isn't the owner a Trump donor?
Dude... Are we reading the same newspaper?
The NY Times has been vehemently opposed to Donald Trump for the past 8 years. They wrote the same thing in 2016. They dedicated the front page to, I don't know, thousands of articles and columns critical of his campaigns, his presidency, his post-presidency, and even his personal life. Here they are again in 2020 saying he should not be president with a lot more flair.
They probably wrote this column because thousands of Biden-clinging Democrats have crying foul since they rightfully pointed out that Biden is not a good candidate. A column they published because they don't want Trump to be president.
No, this is clearly the editorial board taking a stance. The question is whether it matters and how much.
While media organizations are all in rough shape these days, the New York Times is one of the remarkable few that's doing quite well.
Few private outlets have the money for overseas correspondents, topic reporters and content creation that NYT does.
"Sinking" is Trump rhetoric or just what's happening to all media since ad dollars were poached from social sites.
Frankly, I'd be worried about the media landscape's present state if I were a citizen who cared about learning facts and not just editorial conjecture.
I don't think you're reading their comment correctly -- "sinking" is used in the phrase "sinking in" and the comment has absolutely nothing to do with NYT's financial viability or even its success as a newspaper.
You're right - I'm a low sleep dad of a newborn and totally missed that.
Oof understandable, best of luck with the kid
I'll need it. The squealing, I tell you. Lol
A.G. Sulzberger is the NYT Publisher and his family owns (and has always owned) the controlling stake in the company. He is… definitely not a conservative man. And there’s no world in which he supports Donald Trump; when Trump was president, he met with him specifically to attempt to convince Trump to stop attacking the entire premise of journalism:
https://www.nytco.com/press/statement-of-a-g-sulzberger-publisher-the-new-york-times-in-response-to-president-trumps-tweet-about-their-meeting/