NYTimes: Don't Vote for Trump
A day after endorsing Hillary Clinton for president - and hours before Clinton and Trump will face off in the first of three presidential debates - the New York Times has published an editorial warning Americans of the potentially disastrous consequences of a Donald Trump presidency. The Times, which on Sunday called Trump "the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history," makes its case simply by presenting facts about Trump's record: He has encouraged violence against his opponent, admires demagogue Vladimir Putin and advocates water boarding those suspected of committing terrorism, though it is an international war crime. Though he promotes the image of being a successful businessman, Trump has "a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures," like Trump University, which is being investigated for fraud, and he may be in violation of U.S. tax law by taking over $250,000 from the Trump Foundation to pay for his own legal fees. Trump constantly contradicts himself and spreads misinformation, frequently disparages people of color, immigrants, and women, and supports xenophobic and racist policies like stop-and-frisk and a ban on Muslims.
As the Times writes, Trump will be an "agent of change," but voters must ask themselves: of what kind?:
There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.
The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk” policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.
The Times is hoping to convince independents and undecided voters not only that a Trump presidency would be unfathomably bad for this country but that Clinton is uniquely well-qualified for the job. In Sunday's endorsement of Clinton, the Times wrote:
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton - because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.
Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump.
The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.
Election Day is Nov. 8. If you haven't registered to vote yet, you can do so here.
Follow Prachi on Twitter.
You Might Also Like
