Republican leaning newspapers make historic switch

Jessie_Pinkman

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Posts
1,403
The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, and has never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president until now.

The Cincinnati Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century, but now endorses Clinton.

And the Dallas Morning News had recommended a Republican for the nation’s highest office since before World War II, until this election.

It was a hard decision for these papers, and it cost them- in cancellations, even picketers.

“We write our editorials based on principle, and sometimes principle comes at a cost,” the Dallas Morning News editor Mike Wilson said.
 
Last edited:
The Dallas Morning News is endorsing Trump? I thought that paper had sense.
 
The only thing Republican about the Arizona Republic is their name. They've been pissing off conservatives as long as I've been reading it since the late 1970s I can't speak to you before that

Something like 97% of people who claim journalism as their profession also admit they are left-leaning. Just because newspapers dial it back a little bit because they're located in conservative areas doesn't have anything to do with what the personal politics of those who run their editorial boards are.
 
Many conservative newspaper publishers make up the "establishment lane" of the Republican party. They're simply expressing their displeasure with the unprecedented nomination of a member of the "entertainment lane" of the Republican party.

I believe Trump is heading for a landslide defeat.
 
Many conservative newspaper publishers make up the "establishment lane" of the Republican party. They're simply expressing their displeasure with the unprecedented nomination of a member of the "entertainment lane" of the Republican party.

I believe Trump is heading for a landslide defeat.


Will you (please) join RoryN if he wins?
 
The only thing Republican about the Arizona Republic is their name. They've been pissing off conservatives as long as I've been reading it since the late 1970s I can't speak to you before that

Nail on the head.
 
The Richmond Times "Distress" (Dispatch) is taking its own road. Dem VP nominee is a former Richmond mayor, but the newspaper has endorsed Gary Johnson.
 
The only thing Republican about the Arizona Republic is their name. They've been pissing off conservatives as long as I've been reading it since the late 1970s I can't speak to you before that

That someone doesn't obscure the point that, until now, it has always endorsed the Republican presidential candidate and this time it endorsed the Democrat. It apparently didn't piss off as many conservatives ever before in an endorsement for president.
 
That someone doesn't obscure the point that, until now, it has always endorsed the Republican presidential candidate and this time it endorsed the Democrat. It apparently didn't piss off as many conservatives ever before in an endorsement for president.

Queerbait only answers to topics unrelated to the OP when he's butthurt about someone talking bad about a R. His strawmen are always busy moving goal posts.
 
Will you (please) join RoryN if he wins?

I've been meaning to ask you, if Clinton wins as expected, will you adjust your rants against government unemployment figures to say "we can't trust no numbers from a cunt's administration" (as opposed to your current "we can't trust no numbers from a nigger's administration")?
 
Detroit News (R) endorsed Johnson over Tromp. Dumb-ass Johnson, who has demonstrated supreme ignorance of the outside world. Aleppo? World leaders? Global warming? Huh?

As for why conservative publications dump on Tromp, it's obvious: He is not now, nor has he ever been, a conservative. Whatever principles the pubs stood for, he ain't got-em. Question is, will enraged Trompsters burn down their offices? If he (subtly!) suggests that, watch for smoke.
 
That someone doesn't obscure the point that, until now, it has always endorsed the Republican presidential candidate and this time it endorsed the Democrat. It apparently didn't piss off as many conservatives ever before in an endorsement for president.

It's steadilly declining circulation has been supplimented by free editions for each of the sub-regions of phoenix metro. They're not too worried about pissing off the five or six remaining conservative subscribers seeing as how you don't have to worry about losing subscriptions when your current business model involves ads in a giveaway paper.
 
I've been meaning to ask you, if Clinton wins as expected, will you adjust your rants against government unemployment figures to say "we can't trust no numbers from a cunt's administration" (as opposed to your current "we can't trust no numbers from a nigger's administration")?

You not only changed the subject numbers (which were the projected Obamacare victims covered, not unemployment figures) but added language that I didn't use which is pathetic and par for the course for you. That and you didn't answer my original question. Will you join RoryL if he wins... pretty please.
 

AciF959.gif
 
The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, and has never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president until now.

The Cincinnati Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century, but now endorses Clinton.

And the Dallas Morning News had recommended a Republican for the nation’s highest office since before World War II, until this election.

It was a hard decision for these papers, and it cost them- in cancellations, even picketers.

“We write our editorials based on principle, and sometimes principle comes at a cost,” the Dallas Morning News editor Mike Wilson said.

This isn't historic at all if you view this in terms of Globalism vs National Sovereignty instead of R vs D, which are pretty well interchangable these days.

Clinton for all intents and purposes is R. And she is a globalists whore. Virtually every media outlet - which are owned by a handful of people - support the globalist agenda. R vs D is dead.
 
You not only changed the subject numbers (which were the projected Obamacare victims covered, not unemployment figures) but added language that I didn't use which is pathetic and par for the course for you. That and you didn't answer my original question. Will you join RoryL if he wins... pretty please.

It was a paraphrase, and close enough. You are right on one point, however: you were routinely pissing your pants over Obamacare coverage numbers that didn't fit your preconceived political bias. It was Vetteman who pissed his pants about unemployment numbers not fitting his preconceived political bias. I apologize for getting you two race-baiters mixed up.
:D
 
The only thing Republican about the Arizona Republic is their name. They've been pissing off conservatives as long as I've been reading it since the late 1970s I can't speak to you before that

Something like 97% of people who claim journalism as their profession also admit they are left-leaning. Just because newspapers dial it back a little bit because they're located in conservative areas doesn't have anything to do with what the personal politics of those who run their editorial boards are.

It's just really hard to be educated and a Conservative. Once you understand how shit really works fairy tails lose much of their luster.
 
The only thing Republican about the Arizona Republic is their name. They've been pissing off conservatives as long as I've been reading it since the late 1970s I can't speak to you before that

Something like 97% of people who claim journalism as their profession also admit they are left-leaning. Just because newspapers dial it back a little bit because they're located in conservative areas doesn't have anything to do with what the personal politics of those who run their editorial boards are.

So your position is that even though they have never supported a liberal candidate for president in 120 years they are actually liberal? :D
 
It's just really hard to be educated and a Conservative. Once you understand how shit really works fairy tails lose much of their luster.

Education has fuck all to do with it and it's not about how shit really works either. Because the way things are now simply isn't necessary, it's just the stupid we persist in.


What this is about is winning the cold war but totally losing the culture war.

Conservatives just haven't come to terms with it yet.

Even most Republicans today fucking LOATHE the idea of freedom and small government. Individualism, freedom of really any kind is highly frowned upon, capitalism is a bad name now. Civil rights are now the fuckin' enemy and it's popular and cool to openly hate and bash on the USA. Hell make stuff up and bash it, that's even cooler.

Both sides want a super police state, max control over markets and over the individual and the individuals ability to make choices for themselves.

Personally I think it's great....we as a society are totally undeserving of the American dream and should be enslaved as corporate tools.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top