This one has to sting in the worst way. Even the super liberal Washington Post won't endorse her.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washin...ntial-election
The Washington Post announces it won't be endorsing in 2024 race or 'in any future presidential election'
William Lewis, publisher and CEO of The Washington Post, stated, 'We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates'
- DEAR_JOHN
- Yesterday, 01:24 PM
- rooster
- Yesterday, 01:32 PM
Yeah, I'll bet it does sting. First the LA Times. Now them. They speak out against Trump over and over. Then pussy out. Fuck these hypocrites. On this we can agree.
.
.
- texassapper
- Yesterday, 01:49 PM
HEH. Meanwhile the WaPo is writing that Trump is Hitler...
The takeaway is that Kamala is a worst choice than Hitler...
LOLOLOLOLOL. Too rich.
The takeaway is that Kamala is a worst choice than Hitler...
LOLOLOLOLOL. Too rich.
- Salty Again
- Yesterday, 10:45 PM
HEH. Meanwhile the WaPo is writing that Trump is Hitler.......
The takeaway is that Kamala is a worst choice than Hitler...
LOLOLOLOLOL. Too rich. Originally Posted by texassapper
... 
... 
... 
... 
... Glad that the Post didn't keep everybody in the dark
on their true feelings of Kamala.
... Because "Democracy Dies in Darkness!" ...
#### Salty
- txdot-guy
- Yesterday, 11:05 PM
What people are not saying is why the WaPo isn’t endorsing a candidate. For the same reason that the LA Times is not endorsing a candidate.
Both papers are owned by billionaires who have business before the federal government. Donald Trump has made it clear through his statements and his actions that he will exact revenge on those who oppose him.
These billionaires, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, don’t want to piss off Trump just in case he wins the election.
In my opinion that’s more of an offense against the first amendment than anything the Biden administration might have done.
Citizens should not be afraid of retaliation just for expressing an opinion.
Both papers are owned by billionaires who have business before the federal government. Donald Trump has made it clear through his statements and his actions that he will exact revenge on those who oppose him.
These billionaires, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, don’t want to piss off Trump just in case he wins the election.
In my opinion that’s more of an offense against the first amendment than anything the Biden administration might have done.
Citizens should not be afraid of retaliation just for expressing an opinion.
- Yssup Rider
- Yesterday, 11:38 PM
- ICU 812
- Today, 05:38 AM
- adav8s28
- Today, 09:19 AM
What people are not saying is why the WaPo isn’t endorsing a candidate. For the same reason that the LA Times is not endorsing a candidate.+1
Both papers are owned by billionaires who have business before the federal government. Donald Trump has made it clear through his statements and his actions that he will exact revenge on those who oppose him.
These billionaires, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, don’t want to piss off Trump just in case he wins the election.
In my opinion that’s more of an offense against the first amendment than anything the Biden administration might have done.
Citizens should not be afraid of retaliation just for expressing an opinion. Originally Posted by txdot-guy
Exactly. Jeff Bezos had the Harris endorsement from the Washington Post suppressed. The Editor of WAPO resigned. Not sure why Bezos would be afraid of Trump.
- Tigbitties38
- Today, 11:04 AM
Nice try.
Here is the reason the Post won't be endorsing Kamala Harris.
You gotta love it when somebody doesn't have a clue about something and they'll just flap their gums and just make up a response.
Here is the story from the horse's mouth. It's nice to see some integrity from a source.
Plus, notice that all sides doesn't try to judge accuracy in stories. They admit it.
Anybody who thinks a left of center WaPo is in the ballpark of a fox (sued for over a half of a billion dollars) or a Newsmax (just settled lawsuit) is crazy and/or ignorant.
The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.
As our Editorial Board wrote in 1960:
“The Washington Post has not ‘endorsed’ either candidate in the presidential campaign. That is in our tradition and accords with our action in five of the last six elections. The unusual circumstances of the 1952 election led us to make an exception when we endorsed General Eisenhower prior to the nominating conventions and reiterated our endorsement during the campaign. In the light of hindsight we retain the view that the arguments for his nomination and election were compelling. But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital to have avoided formal endorsement.”
The Editorial Board made two other points — ahead of an election that John F. Kennedy won — that will resonate with readers today:
“The election of 1960 is certainly as important as any held in this century. This newspaper is in no sense noncommittal about the challenges that face the country. As our readers will be aware, we have attempted to make clear in editorials our conviction that most of the time one of the two candidates has shown a deeper understanding of the issues and a larger capacity for leadership.”
However, it concluded:
“We nevertheless adhere to our tradition of non-endorsement in this presidential election. We have said and will continue to say, as reasonably and candidly as we know how, what we believe about the emerging issues of the campaign. We have sought to arrive at our opinions as fairly as possible, with the guidance of our own principles of independence but free of commitment to any party or candidate.”
And again in 1972, the Editorial Board posed and then answered this critical question ahead of an election which President Richard M. Nixon won: “In talking about the choice of a President of the United States, what is a newspaper’s proper role? … Our own answer is that we are, as our masthead proclaims, an independent newspaper, and that with one exception (our support of President Eisenhower in 1952), it has not been our tradition to bestow formal endorsement upon presidential candidates. We can think of no reason to depart from that tradition this year.”
🎤
That was strong reasoning, but in 1976 for understandable reasons at the time, we changed this long-standing policy and endorsed Jimmy Carter as president. But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to.
We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.
Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.
Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.
And that is what we are and will be.
From Oct 25 2024
Here is the reason the Post won't be endorsing Kamala Harris.
You gotta love it when somebody doesn't have a clue about something and they'll just flap their gums and just make up a response.
Here is the story from the horse's mouth. It's nice to see some integrity from a source.
Plus, notice that all sides doesn't try to judge accuracy in stories. They admit it.
Anybody who thinks a left of center WaPo is in the ballpark of a fox (sued for over a half of a billion dollars) or a Newsmax (just settled lawsuit) is crazy and/or ignorant.
The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.
As our Editorial Board wrote in 1960:
“The Washington Post has not ‘endorsed’ either candidate in the presidential campaign. That is in our tradition and accords with our action in five of the last six elections. The unusual circumstances of the 1952 election led us to make an exception when we endorsed General Eisenhower prior to the nominating conventions and reiterated our endorsement during the campaign. In the light of hindsight we retain the view that the arguments for his nomination and election were compelling. But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital to have avoided formal endorsement.”
The Editorial Board made two other points — ahead of an election that John F. Kennedy won — that will resonate with readers today:
“The election of 1960 is certainly as important as any held in this century. This newspaper is in no sense noncommittal about the challenges that face the country. As our readers will be aware, we have attempted to make clear in editorials our conviction that most of the time one of the two candidates has shown a deeper understanding of the issues and a larger capacity for leadership.”
However, it concluded:
“We nevertheless adhere to our tradition of non-endorsement in this presidential election. We have said and will continue to say, as reasonably and candidly as we know how, what we believe about the emerging issues of the campaign. We have sought to arrive at our opinions as fairly as possible, with the guidance of our own principles of independence but free of commitment to any party or candidate.”
And again in 1972, the Editorial Board posed and then answered this critical question ahead of an election which President Richard M. Nixon won: “In talking about the choice of a President of the United States, what is a newspaper’s proper role? … Our own answer is that we are, as our masthead proclaims, an independent newspaper, and that with one exception (our support of President Eisenhower in 1952), it has not been our tradition to bestow formal endorsement upon presidential candidates. We can think of no reason to depart from that tradition this year.”
🎤
That was strong reasoning, but in 1976 for understandable reasons at the time, we changed this long-standing policy and endorsed Jimmy Carter as president. But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to.
We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.
Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.
Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.
And that is what we are and will be.
From Oct 25 2024
- Tigbitties38
- Today, 11:21 AM
- Jacuzzme
- Today, 11:41 AM
The WaPo decided to “return to its roots” right when the candidate they’d obviously endorse is in a downward spiral. Sure thing. Wanna buy a bridge?
- adav8s28
- Today, 02:10 PM
- adav8s28
- Today, 02:14 PM
- txdot-guy
- Today, 02:42 PM
- Salty Again
- Today, 04:06 PM