Sunday, October 09, 2016

Joplin Globe endorses Hillary Clinton- how many subscribers will it lose?

On this morning's opinion page, the Joplin Globe endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, the second time in the past three election cycles that the area's newspaper of record, in the middle of a rock-ribbed Republican area, has elected to endorse the Democrat.

In 2008, the Globe endorsed Barack Obama over Arizona Sen. John McCain.

In today's endorsement, the Globe Editorial Board, under the headline Nation at Risk,  said Clinton was better prepared to become president because of her experience and knowledge, and her support of the Patriot Act.

The editorial ended with this paragraph:

When it comes to the future security of America- the most important issue of our time- Clinton is the candidate who makes the most sense.

The Globe lost subscribers eight years ago. Will history repeat itself?


Anonymous said...

Let me supply an edited version of my first replies to that endorsement:

It's on the basis, and I swear I'm not making this up, her foreign policy team, experience and expertise.

The Middle East is in flames (and after killing Gaddafi it will be a very long time before another foreign leader trusts us, and the Russians have recently and correctly declared our government to be so screwed up it can't make any agreements with us), with the greatest number of Displaced Persons in 60 years, which is in turn destabilizing Western Europe, and we're getting really close to a shooting war with Russia. Meanwhile, our weakness in the Pacific is emboldening the PRC to the extent that Japan's former brutally treated colonial nations are allying with it.

Oh, yeah, even if we don't get in a nuclear war with Russia, one of those is looking more and more likely with our failure to suppress North Korea's efforts, which are in cooperation with the ones in the Middle East, with Iran likely getting close, and then the Saudis, who I'll note are under new and much more aggressive management, will call in their chit for financing Pakistan's nuclear program.

Oh, yeah, The Globe mentioned terrorism: Hillary's responses to incidents of "domestic terrorism", i.e. Known Wolves of foreign origin, are more gun control for us, and more "refugees" and immigrants from nations that one might refer to as terrorist producing ones. (Not that she's any different from the establishment Republicans, except they're quieter about the gun control. I believe the total failure of our establishment to realistically address this issue after 9/11 is the root cause of the nation arming itself like never before, which the election of Obama only accelerated.)

But let's get back to the biggest threat: ignoring the possibility of the PRC making an EMP attack on the US, only Russia is an potential existential threat to the the US, and only one major party's presidential candidate wants to avoid a war with it. When it comes to the domain of foreign policy, that's quite enough for me to decide which candidate is vastly better.

Who does the Globe think they're fooling with this line of argument? Then again, should we be surprised that that our corrupt Joplin betters would pick Corrupt Hillary for President?

Anonymous said...

It has more to do with appearances. Most major newspapers have endorsed Clinton, and per usual, they are following the lead of others rather than doing strong original work.

Steve Holmes said...

All it is is bragging rights. The Globe's endorsement doesn't matter. In this era of so many news sources, I doubt many people make up their minds based on what the newspaper says. I hope not, anyway.

Anonymous said...

I don't even look up the Globe on line,
And I close to not reading this rag sheet anymore either.

Anonymous said...

I don't even look up the Globe on line,
And I'm close to not reading this rag sheet anymore either.

Anonymous said...

As usual the people who don't agree with the paper seldom bother to read it or any other news source. Instead they get their information from Rush, Shawn, Glen or any of a number of journalists (info-tainers). No amount of facts will change their minds because they have made their choice and facts will not change that. By the same token we who would support Hillary have made up our minds and will not be lured to the dark side of Mr. Trump. But that is what makes this country great. We can disagree and still be Americans. Only time and a final vote tally will settle this issue. Or continue this great divide. Its about time we quit blaming the president for all of our government induced ills. What about the 535 members of Congress. Maybe we should demand they do their job.

Anonymous said...

But that is what makes this country great. We can disagree and still be Americans.

8:08 AM, perhaps you missed this position statement (i.e., it was pre-written, not off the cuff), from Hillary?

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

So, no, we no longer "can disagree and still be Americans", at least if Hillary is elected.

And the most important word to focus on in that statement, which she's doubled down on, is "irredeemable". It's a religious word, meaning nothing good for those so labeled, per Merriam-Webster "not able to be saved, helped, or made better." Just what fate do you think Hillary has in mind for us? The same as in who's home Obama launched his political career?

Anonymous said...

The Atlantic Magazine, founded in 1847, endorsed Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election. Wonder if they would have survived if the North would have lost the resulting war?

In an Internet age all of us read the news first where the editorial content is in line with what we like. And no, I don't pay for my Internet content.

The Glob isn't worth much today, if anything. The only people who still read the Glob are oldsters, most of whom will vote for Trump anyways.

The Glob's endorsement of Hillary is as irrelevant as the Glob. The area will go for Trump anyways.

Terri Edwards said...

For this very reason I cancelled the subscription that I have had for over 34 years! I will NEVER run another add, purchase or even read The Joplin Globe again! Anyone or anything that supports a MURDERING CROOK has no place in my home!

Anonymous said...

The Globe has not been any good for years. Can't support anyone who supports murder, lies, and the hateful attitude she has. She only cares about money, not your stupid paper.

Pat said...

Canceling my script tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Dang, these comments are filled with almost as many rednecks as Joplin. It's easy to tell now who is over 45 and gets their news solely from memes on Facebook.

Anonymous said...

Hey, the Democrats are not going to win this race for the White House. The Republicans are going to lose it. After nearly a decade of tea-party embraces and attempts to dismantle the core fabric in our country, the chickens have come home to roost. I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. But I am sure as heck not going to turn the country I love over to a narcissistic xenophobe who's heart is full of hatred and greed. Not on your life. The Globe had no choice in the matter but to do the responsible thing.

Anonymous said...

Already canceled the Globe sucks and are a big part of the problems we have locally.

Harvey Hutchinson said...

Any editor who would endorse a despicable, pathological liar; who's real motive is to get her sexual predator husband in the White House, and running the county ( stealing it blind as well); is nauseating and disgraceful as well. This is toulet material!!
Don't forget that for 40 years Hillary's primary duty was to destroy all the " so called bimbos" working under Bill in Little Rock and Washington that he used his position to rape, she was very successful in ruining these women except for Monica Lewinsky whvsavevthe DNA evidence on the blue dress!!!

Anonymous said...

I thought newspapers were supposed to be neutral and unbiased Yeah, right!

Kate Roberts said...

So easy to leave all those nasty comments and not sign your name. If you believe what you are saying, buck up and put your name. The Globe isn't responsible for the problems you have locally. They could be biased in some areas but that's not unusual. I dislike intensely what you are saying about Mrs. Clinton. If you would sit down and read history as it truly happened, you will find there's no difference in what occurs today than a hundred years ago or more. Nobody is perfect.

And once and for all, she wasn't responsible for what happened in Benghazi. That was a safe house not an embassy. He was told to leave but he chose to stay. The majority of the guards were made up of men from that country, and of course they ran rather than fire on their on. And Mr. Obama made that decision, not her. Surely you've followed his years in the white house close enough to know that those kind of decisions are made by or okayed by him.

Well, one way or another, you will have a sexual predator in the white house apparently. But Bill Clinton isn't running for president, Mrs. C. is. And so she's put up with his dallying around all these years. She isn't the first woman to do so and she won't be the last. My mother did the same.

And I read the globe for the news, world news preferably.

Anonymous said...

The Joplin Globe has endorsed: Open borders, more welfare, full term abortion, more
Christian control.
Their candidate is experienced in: people who oppose her suddenly dying, taking foreign money for favors, deliberately breaking the law for her personal convenience, stealing, lying, and has enough power to not be accountable for anything.
A President who doesn't obey the law much less enforce it? Really?