Readers not pleased with Hillary Clinton endorsement
A sample of reader response to the Free Press Editorial Board’s endorsement last Sunday of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

How can you endorse Hillary in your Sunday paper, when she has been shown to have lied plus was also shown to carelessly handle confidential information? Is that a “mature” candidate, as your editorial board claims? Now she is being investigated for more dishonest behavior...and you tell the citizens of Michigan that she should be President. I know many who have canceled their subscriptions and I hope many more do.

Joan Rucker

Northville

When I read your Free Press editorial, I wanted to cancel my subscription. Where have you been? On another planet? Hillary Clinton is not fit to be our president. We need a leader who is honest and trustworthy, which she is not. All of the sordid baggage she has accumulated in her 30 years in politics makes her unfit. This current FBI mess could have been avoided if she had followed the law. Instead we had to find out what is in them from an outside source. So now we know that everything we thought about her is true. The mainstream media has been terribly harmful to our country with its biased reporting. It is no longer to be trusted.

Poldi Wier

Rochester Hills

Considering the constant stream of revelations about the corruption of Hillary Clinton, the Detroit Free Press should remove its endorsement. Her significant character flaws, i.e. lack of ethics was clearly demonstrated when her campaign accepted debate questions in advance of the debates with Bernie. No honorable person would do that. If a child did that in school they would receive a failing grade. Hillary Clinton fails the ethics test and the Detroit Free Press is joining the failure by accepting and endorsing such despicable behavior.

Rod Charles

Auburn Hills

I am in agreement with your endorsement of Hillary Clinton as the matured and progressive choice for president. Clinton’s candidacy has been marred with controversies. Her ideological rift with Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders has caused his supporters to feel betrayed. I am afraid they may abstain from voting, giving Trump a tipping advantage. In my opinion winning may not be an issue for Clinton given Trump’s overall negativity, but winning the trust and confidence of Americans will be her most formidable challenge as the president.

Atul M. Karnik

Woodside, N.Y.

Shame on the Detroit Free Press Editorial Board for endorsing Hillary Clinton. Do we really want another Clinton presidency filled with scandals and corruption? Clearly the endorsement was written by someone who has not been paying attention to the realities of Clinton and Trump. Trump is not perfect. But, he has a better chance to get our country on the right path.

Jed Vier

Dearborn

Your recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton is frightening to say the least. This editorial board, in endorsing this candidate, summarily disregarded the mounting evidence that seems to indicate that the Democratic nominee for the highest office in the land, is as cavalier in her responsibilities as you are. The Detroit Free Press has ignored the verifiable actions that should have cast doubt on this candidate. At the same time, this same editorial decried the “push button” answers to complex questions proposed by the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. Isn’t it just possible that he is proposing exactly what we need?

Mark Logsdon

Sterling Heights

Your endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a complete disservice to all of your readers. While properly and completely portraying Donald Trump and the perils his presidency would bring to our nation, the analysis of Clinton ignores her history and character. There’s no mention or analysis of the other qualified third party candidates on the ballot. It’s a partisan choice that shows its politics as usual at the Free Press.

Jim O’Connor

Grosse Pointe

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/11/05/readers-pleased-clinton-endorsement/93346010/

if this is the free press publication out of detroit,, nothing here is surprising

the median income for detroit is half of that in these areas the disgruntled come from


people vote their interests,,,,people with nothing can hardly believe a billionaire who speaks as he does gives a crap about them or will not get in and continue to represent his rich colleagues

Im so glad memes are so verified and reliable

Only difference is, he's running for the office to be president, she's
running to be dictator.

only one dick running


the one who wants dissenters punched, carried out on stretchers, and admits loving war

people with nothing can hardly believe a billionaire who speaks as he does gives a crap about them or will not get in and continue to represent his rich colleagues

____________________________________________________________________

But they can believe Hillary and the Dems who have delivered nothing to them in the last 8 years?

Ask the folks in Chicago if they are any better off.

but by all means vote for her.. and get 4 more years of the same

not everyone lives in Chicago

not everyone buys that democrats have done 'nothing'

QUOTE:

the one who wants dissenters punched, carried out on stretchers,

QUOTE:


And now.... the reality...

Disruptors in Mr.Trump Rallies -

http://m.mingle2.com/topic/show/473880/

3/13/2016

a mingle thread is only the 'reality' of what minglers believe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8_niqRrrtg

reality from the horses mouth

Chicago.. gets played out in every urban area...no difference.

then exactly what have they done for the black voters? How has their lives improved over the last 8 years.

we can ask what have reps done this election ....

but thats beside the point because this election is between two people,,two individuals,, political affiliations aside



its not a matter of what dems have done actually, because we have a government and dems and reps have to vote TOGETHER to get anything done

its not a matter of one side or the other being able to take credit or blame

however, there is a great indicator of values when we listen to what people say,, whatever their position or political affilation

and the reps seem to value the classist status quo that leaves blacks on the bottom

more of a chance of change than under the dictator billionaire,,,

yeah, you said a lot, yet said nothing.

Black voters have historically voted Dem. and certainly did this past two election

So if the staus quo is to leave blacks on the bottom.. you would think they would want a chance

So I ask again, exactly how as their lives improved the last 8 years...what have they been given as a thank you for being loyal to the Dems.

Because if you listen to a LOT of black people the answer is... nothing. Their quality of life has NOT improved.. just the opposite.

But like I stated before, some people are born followers. So, if your gal wins, the black community is in for the same treatment for the next 4 years... nothing.. zip. no change and the inner cities will continue to deteriorate.

thanks for the non answer to a very direct question.

Fact is you can not name any positive change of substance

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/obamas-hope-and-change-has-given-us-fear-and-loathing/

So this is how Hope & Change ends. With the FBI in turmoil, with surging anti-police violence, with fears of voter fraud and foreign hacking, with a sluggish economy, with a terror warning and with two unpopular presidential candidates tearing at each other like wolves.

Heckuva job, Barack Obama!

The 44th president made history by being elected, but leaves behind a nation on the verge of a crack-up. He flatters himself by insisting his tenure has been a roaring success, but the public mood tells a different story.

Obama promised to unite America, but exits amidst far greater divisions. It is telling that he has stopped portraying himself as a uniter and, like Jimmy Carter, blames the public.

Carter saw malaise, Obama sees bitter clingers, racists and xenophobes. While Obama’s lectures convey disappointment in his fellow Americans, it never occurs to him that he is a disappointment to them.

His failure to come to grips with the polarization, combined with an aggressively liberal agenda spearheaded by executive orders and a politicized bureaucracy, means his successor will inherit a country broken along every fault line imaginable. Voices of discontent and even estrangement are rising among Americans of all stripes and persuasions.

So much so that the one universal point of agreement is that the next occupant of the Oval Office must forge a fundamental consensus before the country can begin to address its critical problems.

But forging that consensus could prove to be the most difficult problem of all, especially with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both better at exploiting polarization than ending it.

Indeed, polls showing a close outcome suggest the winner will take office on a wave of bitterness. Legal challenges remain a possibility, both to the legitimacy of the vote and to the candidates’ past actions.

Still, the near-universal clamor for change offers a potential opening. Grievances from across the political spectrum demonstrate that most of the country agrees our public servants are only serving themselves, and that Washington is disconnected from most Americans’ daily lives.

The necessary consensus, then, won’t be found in a new program conceived in a winner-take-all environment. While there are some areas of basic agreement — infrastructure development, tax reform, and the need to more fully confront Islamic terror — they are not the sort of things that get to the root problem.

Building trust can begin with small steps of transparency conveyed in plain English — no parsing or government mumbo-jumbo allowed.

That root, I believe, is a fundamental distrust of government. It can’t be fixed by bigger government, or even by just a smaller one.

Instead, the only solution is a more honest government, a goal that must be addressed as a distinct issue from Day One. Building trust can begin with small steps of transparency conveyed in plain English — no parsing or government mumbo-jumbo allowed.

Tragically, neither candidate is equipped for the challenge. Clinton, because of her long trail of dishonesty in public life, will never be able to summon broad national support for anything.

In fact, the campaign has undermined her claims to be ready for the presidency, and she still offers no rationale other than ambition. Her contempt for everyday Americans, expressed through the use of a private server and in words like “deplorables” and “irredeemable” directed at Trump supporters, has created a new ceiling of her own making.

Thanks to the FBI and Wiki­Leaks revelations, we know her judgment is not trusted even by her closest confidants.

If Republicans hold either house of Congress, Clinton will face hobbling probes from the start. Her arrogant resolve to keep the family foundation open guarantees an endless stream of pay-to-play suspicions. Making gender history would come at too high a price.

That leaves Trump. His defects of temperament and instinct are enormous, and it is certain he is guilty of despicable abuse of some women. Also, there are reasons why the New York business and philanthropic communities hold him in low regard.

But we are where we are, and Trump has one advantage over Clinton — a clean slate in exercising governmental power. He is a genuine outsider whose promise of change is more credible, and better matches the nation’s mood.

Unlike Clinton, he would be free to break with Obama’s failed policies on immigration, health care and Iran. Moreover, Trump’s improvement as a candidate suggests he has more potential for upside surprises. A few good Cabinet picks would reassure millions of Americans and create a valuable honeymoon for his administration.

All that said, Trump remains a long shot to be a good president. But after eight years of Hope & Change, a long shot is the only shot we have.

It also had something else symbolic of our times: a reckless media organization that didn’t care about, or wasn’t capable of, separating fact from fiction. It was all about the agenda, truth be damned.

With many Americans believing the presidential election will be a referendum on the conduct of liberal news organizations, the jury finding that Rolling Stone defamed a former dean is a warning shot to the fact-free, agenda-driven culture common in American journalism.

Up and down the media food chain, pushing a narrative is taking precedence over an honest reporting of facts.

Social consciousness is being sold as the new journalism, but it’s actually discredited sensationalism in liberal wrapping. Advancing a political agenda without facts is no more honorable than spinning melodramatic tales with concocted quotes and scenes. Both distort the truth to serve an ulterior purpose.

That’s the beauty of the truth — it doesn’t need to be embellished.
The two faces of Blas

Bill de Blasio records a dubious hat trick.

New York’s mayor has proven himself a double threat, showing big talents for being incompetent and corrupt. Now we can add dishonest to his résumé.


The WikiLeaks deluge catches de Blasio saying one thing publicly about Hillary Clinton and the opposite privately. The public statement is what he wanted voters to believe, the private one is what he believes.

Asked in a March TV appearance whether he thought Clinton should release the transcripts of paid speeches she gave to banks, de Blasio claimed, “I don’t care about those speeches.”

Yet that same day he sent an e-mail to John Podesta, chair of Clinton’s campaign, saying of the speeches, “I’m trying, brother, but this one is hard to defend.”

“Hard to defend” but you can if you’re willing to lie. That’s politics, brother.
Donald dodges Bridgegate bullet

Somebody on Donald Trump’s team deserves a raise. Trump initially offered his running-mate slot to Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, then an unnamed adviser warned it was a mistake, arguing that, among other reasons, Christie could be damaged by the “Bridgegate” trial.

So he was, but he is not the running mate, making Mike Pence look better than ever

I can not name positive change that can be attributed solely to 'dems' or reps

because all must vote and a majority of votes is needed for 'change'

and because the government, rep and dem, cannot pass laws specifically for or against racial demographics,


positive changes in unemployment, access to healthcare, and police corruption are three things off the top of my head

but I wouldnt be ignorant enough to say only dems supported it or that all reps opposed it