The Rockhurst Model UN Summer Camp will provide students an opportunity to learn the basics of Model United Nations as well as learn new strategies and skills needed to improve their performance. This camp is both for students who have never participated in Model UN and also veterans who are looking to grow in the activity.
If you think there is actually a real debate about the answer to this question, you should probably spend a little bit more time studying economics.
“Among mercantile fallacies were such notions as the balance of trade required to be positive in favour of exports, so that a nation could accumulate stocks of gold and silver (which the King could use to fight wars against neighbours – you can see why kings were easily converted to the nonsense!).
From this fallacy, policies of protection against imports were developed, supported by tariffs and prohibitions, even though this meant that large numbers of goods cost domestic consumers much more from higher prices (and profits) than importing them would have allowed – you can see why many ‘merchants and manufacturers’ were enthusiastic true believers in this fallacious idea, and still are!”
Smith opposed such government interventions because they held back mutually advantageous trade from which peaceful trading countries could increase the opulence of their peoples. Many of the trade items added to the long lists (which grow ever longer) of protected trade were derived, not from economic principles or national secureity but from the lobbying of legislators and the hiring of influencers (with not a little bribery) on behalf of domestic ‘merchants and manufacturers’, who profited by narrowing the supply and widening the higher-priced market for their goods.”
–Professor Gavin Kennedy, University of Edinburgh
“I know from talking to business people that no major firm wants to be a subject of a Trump tweet,” says Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He says companies realize Trump controls the Justice Department, the Defense Department, the IRS, Treasury and regulatory agencies, and “the amount of control that intersects with what companies are doing is enormous.”
“There is no precedent for a U.S. president requiring private companies to use U.S.-made materials or equipment outside of war-time, said Dan Ikenson, director of the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies.
“First of all, this is private investment, so there’s no legal authority for the government to require a private company to use domestic materials,” he said on Thursday, prior to Trump’s comments at the retreat.
“Is it good policy to have the president dictate where U.S. companies buy their inputs? No. I think that’s terrible. I think that’s dictatorial. I think it’s very bad precedence.”
“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished, no more than that of the above-mentioned artificers; but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage. It is certainly not employed to the greatest advantage when it is thus directed towards an object which it can buy cheaper than it can make.”
“When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbors prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours prohibition, but of some other class.”
“To the extent that some Americans are harmed, which is inevitable, the projected gains of future free-trade agreements should be more than enough to compensate losers, if only the government can get itself organised. Peter Petri and Michael Plummer, two economists, estimate that the TPP will boost American incomes by $131 billion, or 0.5% of GDP. That is over 100 times what America spent on trade-adjustment assistance in 2009: there is plenty of scope to do more for the losers from trade.”
Maybe we need to see the Donald’s transcripts? He sure doesn’t seem to understand how the economy works.
In an election with mostly unsatisfactory choices, the one thing that we can do as a country is avoid making the worst possible choice. This year, it is clear the Donald Trump is the worst possible choice for president of the United States. Old, white, and uneducated is not the future of this country. A vote for Trump is not a vote for the future. It is a vote for a past that never really existed. To the extent that it did, we should be seeking to leave these elements behind- not seeking to restore them. We cannot escape the world and whites cannot escape living in a multi-racial, multi-cultural country and international community. It is not possible, and it is not desirable. We have been at our best as a country when we have embraced the world and sought to make it better. This was the dream of our founding fathers and it has always been the goal of our greatest leaders from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan.
Trump is also causing Republicans to abandon the principles that made the party great and has allowed it to dominate presidential politics for most of the 150 years since it was founded. As a life-long Democrat who appears to have had an epiphany late in life that he is both Christian and conservative, it should not surprise anyone who has followed his public life that Trump is not really a principled conservative.
But his efforts to move the Republican Party away from conservatism has been particularly jarring to watch.
As Ross Douthat, conservative columnist for the New York Times writes in his editorial “An Election Is Not a Suicide Mission”
“A vote for Trump is not a vote for insurrection or terrorism or secession. But it is a vote for a man who stands well outside the norms of American presidential politics, who has displayed a naked contempt for republican institutions and constitutional constraints, who deliberately injects noxious conspiracy theories into political conversation, who has tiptoed closer to the incitement of political violence than any major politician in my lifetime, whose admiration for authoritarian rulers is longstanding, who has endorsed war crimes and indulged racists and so on down a list that would exhaust this column’s word count if I continued to compile it.
It is a vote, in other words, for a far more chaotic and unstable form of political leadership (on the global stage as well as on the domestic) than we have heretofore experienced, and a leap unlike any that conservative voters have considered taking in all the long years since Roe v. Wade.“
Most voters agree that Trump has little or no respect for our country’s democratic institutions.
This is not an approach that is going to win the Republican votes over the long term. Young voters are increasingly turning to Democrats and will continue to do so in this election. For the 3rd consecutive election, K-12 readers of Scholastic magazine have chosen the Democratic candidate over the Republican.
“Since 1940, the results of the student vote have usually mirrored the outcome of the presidential election. In fact, Scholastic readers have been wrong only twice. In 1948, kids picked Thomas E. Dewey over President Harry S. Truman. And in 1960, more students voted for Richard M. Nixon than for the eventual president, John F. Kennedy.”
Millennials, the generation currently between 18-30, have been supporting Democrats consistently in the past several elections and appear to be supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 almost as strongly as they did Obama in 2008 and 2012. Some thought that Hillary Clinton was at risk of losing this support this year, but Trump’s campaign has appeared to energize young people in particular to favor Clinton over Trump as a reaction against Trump’s obvious bigotry and sexism. Millennials are expected to provide record-low support for Republican candidates this year.
Even young Republicans are repudiating Trump in favor of Hillary Clinton. The Harvard College Republicans endorsed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, the first time that the group has favored a Democrat since it’s founding in 1888.
Here’s the Harvard Republican Club’s statement:
Dear Members and Alumni,
In every presidential election since 1888, the members and Executive Board of the Harvard Republican Club have gathered to discuss, debate, and eventually endorse the standard-bearer of our party. But for the first time in 128 years, we, the oldest College Republicans chapter in the nation, will not be endorsing the Republican nominee.
Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses –from racist slander to misogynistic taunts– is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.
If enacted, Donald Trump’s platform would endanger our security both at home and abroad. Domestically, his protectionist trade policies and draconian immigration restrictions would enlarge our federal deficit, raise prices for consumers, and throw our economy back into recession. Trump’s global outlook, steeped in isolationism, is considerably out-of-step with the traditional Republican stance as well. The flippancy with which he is willing to abdicate the United States’ responsibility to lead is alarming. Calling for the US’ withdrawal from NATO and actively endorsing nuclear proliferation, Donald Trump’s foreign policy would wreak havoc on the established world order which has held aggressive foreign powers in check since World War II.
Perhaps most importantly, however, Donald Trump simply does not possess the temperament and character necessary to lead the United States through an increasingly perilous world. The last week should have made obvious to all what has been obvious to most for more than a year. In response to any slight –perceived or real– Donald Trump lashes out viciously and irresponsibly. In Trump’s eyes, disagreement with his actions or his policies warrants incessant name calling and derision: stupid, lying, fat, ugly, weak, failing, idiot –and that’s just his “fellow” Republicans.
He isn’t eschewing political correctness. He is eschewing basic human decency.
Donald Trump, despite spending more than a year on the campaign trail, has either refused or been unable to educate himself on issues that matter most to Americans like us. He speaks only in platitudes, about greatness, success, and winning. Time and time again, Trump has demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge on critical matters, meandering from position to position over the course of the election. When confronted about these frequent reversals, Trump lies in a manner more brazen and shameless than anything politics has ever seen.
Millions of people across the country are feeling despondent. Their hours have been cut, wages slashed, jobs even shipped overseas. But Donald Trump doesn’t have a plan to fix that. He has a plan to exploit that.
Donald Trump is a threat to the survival of the Republic. His authoritarian tendencies and flirtations with fascism are unparalleled in the history of our democracy. He hopes to divide us by race, by class, and by religion, instilling enough fear and anxiety to propel himself to the White House. He is looking to to pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, American against American. We will not stand for this vitriolic rhetoric that is poisoning our country and our children.
President Reagan called on us to maintain this, our shining city on a hill. He called on us to maintain freedom abroad by keeping a strong presence in the world. He called on us to maintain liberty at home by upholding the democratic process and respecting our opponents. He called on us to maintain decency in our hearts by loving our neighbor.
He would be ashamed of Donald Trump. We are too.
This fall, we will instead focus our efforts on reclaiming the Republican Party from those who have done it considerable harm, campaigning for candidates who will uphold the conservative principles that have defined the Republican Party for generations. We will work to ensure both chambers of Congress remain in Republican hands, continuing to protect against executive overreach regardless of who wins the election this November.
We call on our party’s elected leaders to renounce their support of Donald Trump, and urge our fellow College Republicans to join us in condemning and withholding their endorsement from this dangerous man. The conservative movement in America should not and will not go quietly into the night.
A longtime student of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
De Tocqueville believed in the United States. Americans are a decent people. We work hard, protect our own, and look out for one another in times of need, regardless of the color of our skin, the God we worship, or our party registration. Donald Trump may not believe in that America, but we do. And that America will never cease to be great.
The Harvard Republican Club
But despite the fact that young people appear to be turning away from Republicans in general, and Donald Trump in particular, young people have not traditionally been opposed to conservatives. Pew Research shows that that “young people haven’t always been so enamored with the Democrats. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, 18-to-25-year-olds were more Republican than older age groups.” Republicans have rarely lost among this group by more than a few percentage points and actually won majorities among this group of voters in 1972, 1984, and 1988.
“His entire approach to the world is off-putting to college-educated whites, particularly college-educated white women,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. “The fact that they are so negative on Trump is what keeps him from getting the proportion of white votes he needs to put together a majority coalition.”
David Wasserman, an election forecaster with the Cook Political Report, said that losing white college graduates “could be catastrophic” for Trump’s chances.
Trump is accelerating a long-term trend that has been occurring over the last several decades, with Republicans increasingly attracting whites with lower levels of education, and voters with college degrees and post-graduate degrees increasingly voting Democrats. This year will be unique, mostly due to the degree of this split and the margins which Clinton is expected to defeat Trump among this group.
“There have been similarly modest differences in the vote choices of college graduates and those with less education in other elections in the past few decades. The largest gap was in 1996, when voters without college degrees backed Bill Clinton over Bob Dole by a 14-point margin (51% vs. 37%), while voters with less education were more closely divided (47% Clinton vs. 44% Dole). Today, it is the more educated voters who are more likely to favor the Democratic candidate, and the gap between the groups is far wider than it was 20 years ago.“
The loss of college-educated whites has the potential to be devastating over the long-term to the Republican party, particularly when seen in the context of the growing racial diversity of the country, the voting trends among non-whites, and the trends among younger voters- both whites and non-whites, which are all favoring the Democratic Party over the long term. The last line of defense for the Republican Party, short of adapting its policy approaches to make it more appealing to younger and non-white voters, is to protect its advantage among college-educated voters. Trump’s approach is clearly not working, and is not likely to work over either the long or short-term among this group, which will make it virtually impossible for the Republican Party to cobble together a majority coalition in coming elections.
Trump’s ideology, to the extent that there is one, is based on a reactionary attitude toward change. Trump’s Republican Party is a party of racial and cultural resentment. He is banking on maximizing support among whites by playing on their perceived sense of loss, or deprivation, relative to other groups. Trump is, as Francis Wilkinson argues, the last gasp of a conservatism that never was and never will be again.
“But it’s conservatives who feel most threatened these days, as demographic and cultural change tests their racial tolerance, traditional values and very concept of America. It’s hardly a coincidence that a white male candidate steeped in racist and sexist language and conduct is running against the first female major-party nominee, or following the first black president. Trump is the embodiment of reaction.
Under cultural threat, conservatives have been making stark departures from longstanding political norms — suppressing the votes of people who disagree with them, deliberately promoting government waste and dysfunction — that they might find abhorrent under less stressful circumstances.
Trump arguably represents the most egregious break from political norms yet. He is a wildly dangerous and unstable figure, which is why many fellow Republicans have declared him beyond the pale. For some, denouncing Trump was a political decision. For most, however, it appears to have been made on grounds of national security, morality or both, which required refuting an evolving, adaptive moral narrative spun by conservative allies.
Win or lose, Trump will receive tens of millions of votes next Tuesday. His tally will be analyzed for its political content. But it will also represent the latest push in moral relativism sweeping conservative America and, as Shiller perceived, threatening vital American institutions.
Once a system has become sufficiently elastic to accommodate, rationalize and even champion a Trump, there’s no telling where the boundaries move next.”
Yet regardless of this effort to stem the tide of change by changing the rules and boundaries of American political discourse, the change is coming and there is nothing that can or will be done to change it regardless of the outcome of this election. Demography is destiny and Trump’s America is not America’s future. Trump’s strategy of running up the white vote in order to win this year’s election appears destined to fail. Over the long term, the strategy is disastrous. Whites, especially older ones, might not like that the future of this country is non-white. But that cannot be changed.
Every year, whites are becoming a smaller and smaller share of the population. Immigrants are accounting for increasing share of population and having children at higher rates than those born in the US.
Every election, whites make up a smaller and smaller share of eligible voters.
And these voters are becoming increasingly Democratic. The GOP can continue to do well among whites and, perhaps even improve its position among them, and still lose national elections. Romney, for example, did better among whites than any candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
But, as well as Obama did among Hispanics in 2008 and 2012- much better than Democrats had ever done among this group before- Hillary Clinton is likely to exceed this margin, not as much because of her strengths as much as Trump’s obvious weaknesses. In just one example, Clinton is leading Trump among Hispanics in Florida by 30%.
“Republican politicians from Miami-Dade County — Florida’s most-populous county with the largest share of Hispanics — are keeping their distance from Trump.
Rubio and Miami-Dade’s three Cuban-American U.S. House members won’t campaign with him. Miami-Dade’s mayor, a Cuban-American Republican, said he’d vote for Clinton.
The takeaway, Amandi said, is that Trump’s poor standing with Latinos underscores a broader problem with the Republican Party, which has blocked immigration reform and has done little to court the Hispanic vote.
“The Republican Party has an unwillingness to learn the lessons of 2008 and 2012,” Amandi said. “Donald Trump is a symptom of the Republican Party’s problem. He’s not the cause.”
This is not just confined to Florida, but is a national phenomenon.
The Republican Party cannot win elections now or in the future by alienating the constituencies that will soon constitute the majority of the population of this country. Democrats are winning growing majorities of college-educated voters, women, young voters, and minority voters. Every election that passes, these groups will constitute a growing share of the electorate, making it harder and harder for Republicans to win without winning a larger share of an ever-shrinking population. The party will have to do this without being able to fall back on the principles and traditions that have served it well over its more than 160 year history, as Trump has in some cases deliberately and in some cases inadvertently tried to shift the party away from these values. It is hard to see how this can be a winning formulation for the Grand Old Party, and it is even harder to see why anyone should regret the demise of a party that would self-consciously try to win this way.
Modern history doesn’t supply the only lessons against a nativist political strategy. Three early American political parties committed suicide partly due to their intransigent nativism.
The Federalist Party turned against Irish and French immigrants in the late 18th century, who then turned against them, thus eroding their base of support in Northeastern cities. The Whig Party self-destructed over opposition to immigration and disagreements over slavery. In the 1850s, the nativist American Party (also known as the Know-Nothings) quickly rose but then failed after a few successful elections. Anti-immigration positions may have helped those embattled parties for an election or two but in the long run they turned off more voters than they attracted.
Abraham Lincoln would have none of this when he helped build the Republican Party. In an 1855 letter he wrote to Owen Lovejoy, an Illinois state representative and an abolitionist, “I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be?” Lincoln continued, “Of their principles [Know-Nothingism] I think little better than I do of those of the slavery extensionists.”
Lincoln divorced the new Republican Party from nativism. German voters in the Midwest were attracted to the party’s support for immigration and laws, like the Homestead Act and speedy naturalizations, that rebuked the nativists. Modern Republicans would be wise to learn from Lincoln’s inclusive vision. A nativist turn would rebuke the party’s principles while paying a high long-term political cost.
“We are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”
It is fitting that the National Enquirer is one of the few actual newspaper endorsements for Trump. For more on newspaper endorsements, see below.
One of the most unprecedented qualities of the 2016 Presidential Election, and there are many, is that so many prominent Republican Party leaders, past and present, and influential conservatives have rejected their party’s own presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Of the last 7 presidential nominees, only one, Bob Dole, has said that they are supporting Donald Trump. The others, like Mitt Romney, have vocally opposed Donald Trump, and continue to do so, or, like George W. Bush, have simply refused to endorse him or comment publicly on him. Neither Romney, Bush, John McCain, or George H.W. Bush attended the Republican National Convention. The sitting governor of Ohio and former 2016 GOP presidential candidate, John Kasich, also did not attend the convention, even though it was held in Cleveland. Below is a partial list of Republicans who have rejected Trump with some of their reasons for doing so, as well as links to articles or summaries of their public statements about Trump.
Some of the notable names from this list.
“I will not vote for a nominee who has behaved in a manner that reflects so poorly on our country. Our country deserves better.”
“Not only did he seem at the debate to lose his temper, but to get up at 3:30 a.m. and reach for your smartphone is to me a hysterical reaction. If you’re president, the button you reach for is not the Twitter button; it’s the nuclear button,” Chertoff told Bloomberg.
“At the political level, Trump sees quite a few powerful “others” in the American electoral process: a corrupt media, international banks, unrestricted immigrants, a variety of globalists, free-traders and (at least some) Muslims. It’s a list Putin could second or, in some cases, jail or worse.
Sounding simultaneously populist and a little bit the conspiratorial Marxist, Trump has claimed that these unseen forces could rig the U.S. election. It’s a theme that Putin is happy to echo. Indeed, it’s a theme that his intelligence services are happy to actively propagate.
And in that case, the American presidential candidate routinely comes to the defense of his Russian soul mate. In the face of a high-confidence judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and then weaponized embarrassing emails to sow confusion here, the man who would be president has declared: “Our country has no idea,” “I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. . . . It could also be lots of other people” and “They always blame Russia.”
“Donald Trump’s unfitness for public office has become ever more apparent, we urge our fellow Republicans not to vote for this man whose disgraceful candidacy is indefensible. This is no longer about our party; it’s now about America. We may differ on how we will cast our ballots in November but none of us will vote for Donald Trump.”
“At some point, you have to look in the mirror and recognize that you cannot possibly justify support for Trump to your children — especially your daughters,” said David Humphreys, a Missouri business executive who contributed more than $2.5 million to Republicans from the 2012 campaign cycle through this spring and opposed Mr. Trump’s bid from the outset.
Bruce Kovner, a New York investor and philanthropist who with his wife has given $2.7 million to Republicans over the same period, was just as blunt. “He is a dangerous demagogue completely unsuited to the responsibilities of a United States president,” Mr. Kovner wrote in an email, referring to Mr. Trump.
“But Donald Trump’s behavior this week, concluding with the disclosure of his demeaning comments about women and his boasts about sexual assaults, make it impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy.”
“Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire was the first Republican senator facing a competitive re-election to say she would no longer back Mr. Trump, announcing in a statement that she would write in Mr. Pence for president instead.
“I’m a mom and an American first, and I cannot and will not support a candidate for president who brags about degrading and assaulting women.”
“I’m concerned about his attitude toward minorities,” he said. “His statements against Mexicans I find repulsive; the same of his statements toward Muslims and his ridicule of women. I want to have a president that I can be proud of.”
“One of the candidates — Donald J. Trump — is entirely unqualified to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief. He is ignorant of the complex nature of the challenges facing our country, from Russia to China to ISIS to nuclear proliferation to refugees to drugs, but he has expressed no interest in being educated. Indeed he has recently demonstrated he entirely misunderstands and disrespects the role of the very officials who could educate him: the senior career officers of our intelligence services and of our military services (whom he has characterized as “rubble”).”
“I wanted my grandkids to see that I simply couldn’t ignore what Mr. Trump was saying and doing, which revealed a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world.” Romney continued: “I know that some people are offended that someone who lost and is the former nominee continues to speak, but that’s how I can sleep at night.” (May 27, 2016)
“Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland and daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy, posted the news Monday on Facebook. Alongside a photo of her posing with Bush, she wrote, “The President told me he’s voting for Hillary!!”
“I mean, unbelievable. I don’t know how women can vote for someone who said what he said about Megyn Kelly,” she said. “And we knew what he meant too!”
“I was damn near puking during the debates,” Steele said, adding that Trump has “captured that racist underbelly, that frustration, that angry underbelly of American life and gave voice to that.” Here’s another sign of the times: Steele is the sixth former RNC chair to say that he’s opposing Trump.
“Ultimately, I could not abide the hateful rhetoric of Donald Trump and his complete lack of principles and conservative philosophy. I didn’t make this decision lightly,” she told CNN. She said if Florida looks close, she will vote for Hillary Clinton in order to defeat Trump.
“But gun control isn’t the only reason why Pressler is ready to join “Republicans for Clinton” — he’s also concerned about Trump’s rhetoric on Muslims.
“This election is starting to sound like the German elections in [the late 1920s],” Pressler said. “This is a very dangerous national conversation we’re slipping into.”
“I won’t vote for Donald Trump.
I won’t vote for Donald Trump because of who he isn’t.
He isn’t a Republican. He isn’t a conservative. He isn’t a truth teller.
I also won’t vote for Donald Trump because of who he is.
A bigot. A misogynist. A fraud. A bully.”
“Miller added that Trump has “never done anything for the public good.”
“He’s 70 years old, he’s never done one thing,” he said, claiming the GOP presidential nominee has never given money to charity or done anything to “advance an issue.”
“He’s a billionaire. He gives no money to charity. A billionaire. All of us give more money to charity than he does. I’m not anywhere near a billionaire,” Miller said.”
“Brooks said globalization, the influx of immigrants and feminism “has been really good” for America. “We had a lot of good things over the years that were really good for America,” he said. “I think globalization has been really good for America. I think the influx of immigrants has been really good for America. Feminism has been really good for America.”
Brooks said he is not sharing who is voting for, leaving it up to the viewer to surmise who he’ll pull the lever for. “I can’t say who I’m going to vote for, but one person is clearly disqualified for that job,” Brooks said at the end of the segment. “And I can’t mention his name.”
This is not just a typical “liberal media bias”. Obama only received 95 endorsements in 2012 from the approximately 300 papers listed above. Mitt Romney received 87 endorsements from these papers. This year, 225 different newspapers papers, have endorsed Hillary Clinton this year. Trump has received only 8 endorsements, with 6 other newspapers writing editorials specifically opposing him. This reflects something fundamentally different than we have ever seen before.
Many of these newspapers are traditionally conservative newspapers from Republican dominated states. It is highly unusual that they would endorse a Democrat and many papers have specifically pointed out that they are rejecting Donald Trump more than they endorsing Hillary Clinton.
“We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”
“There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.
We don’t come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation’s highest office since before World War II — if you’re counting, that’s more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections.”
This paper has not endorsed a Democrat for president in its 148-year history. But we endorse Clinton. She’s the safe choice for the U.S. and for the world, for Democrats and Republicans alike.”
“Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.
This year is different.
The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.”
“Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.”
“Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House.”
“We acknowledge upfront that one major reason to support Hillary is that RepublicanDonald Trump is manifestly unqualified to be president of the United States. In a related editorial, we explain why the Donald Trump/Mike Pence slate would be a terrible choice.
“Trump is a clear and present danger to our country. He has no history of governance that should engender any confidence from voters. Trump has no foreign policy experience, and the fact that he doesn’t recognize it – instead insisting that, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do” – is even more troubling.”
“These are unsettling times, even if they’re not the dark, dystopian end times that Trump lays out. They require a steady hand. That’s not Donald Trump.”
“Heaven help America were, unthinkably, Clinton to fail. She is all that stands between the United States of America and never-before-seen proof that the Founding Fathers weren’t all that they’ve been cracked up to be.”
“For us, the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not pleasant, but it isn’t difficult. Republican candidate Donald Trump is unfit to be president of the United States. Democrat Hillary Clinton, despite her flaws, is well-equipped for the job.
The Dispatch traditionally has endorsed Republican presidential candidates, but Trump does not espouse or support traditional Republican values, such as fiscal prudence, limited government and free trade, not to mention civility and decency. We are disappointed that so many Republican leaders have accommodated a narcissistic, morally bankrupt candidate who is so clearly out of step with those values.”
“Mrs. Clinton is a seriously flawed candidate. Many voters don’t trust her, and with good reason. Her careless use of a private email server while secretary of state, and her stubborn reluctance to admit wrongdoing, are troubling. Her claim during last weekend’s debate to be emulating Abraham Lincoln when saying one thing in public and another in private was absurd.
She is reflexively defensive and habitually evasive. For Hillary Clinton, transparency always feels like a last resort.
But Mrs. Clinton’s failings can’t compare, in scale or in number, to Republican nominee Donald Trump’s.
Mr. Trump has proved himself wholly unsuited to be president. He has spent this campaign denigrating women, Muslims, Mexicans, refugees, disabled people, the parents of a soldier who died in Iraq and essentially anyone who questioned him. He has suggested that an African-American protester at one of his rallies should be “roughed up,” made gross generalizations suggesting that all black people live in poor, violent neighborhoods, expressed support for racial profiling by police. And he threatened in the last debate to jail his political rival if elected.”
“The last two Republican presidential nominees — Mitt Romney and John McCain — say they won’t vote for him. The last two Republican presidents — George W. and George H. W. Bush — refused to attend his nominating convention. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a revered statesman and four-star general for Republican administrations, slammed Trump as “a national disgrace” and “international pariah.”
Trump has repeatedly shown a disdain for our nation’s allies and alliances and an affection for its enemies.
“From puerile feuding, to “birtherism,” to bigotry, Trump’s candidacy draws out the ugly side of America. He seems incapable of accurately discussing any issue, choosing instead to pull the pin on verbal grenades, many of which blow up in his face. His claim that the election is rigged undermines the very task that thousands of candidates in local, state and national elections have undertaken in earnest.
Trump touts his business acumen, but he’s left behind a string of failures, along with unpaid contractors and workers. Governing is not a series of deals backstopped by bankruptcy laws. Trump isn’t any better when it comes to transparency, refusing to release tax returns that might contradict his boasting.”
“This is not an endorsement taken lightly, nor is it an easy one to make, as Hillary Clinton does not represent the fiscal conservatism, free-market mind-set and desire to keep restraints on government overreach that this newspaper usually supports.
Sadly, neither does Trump, as evidenced by his enthusiastic support of eminent domain; his insistence that an impractical, multibillion-dollar wall (which also would mean taking private property owners’ land) would be a good investment; his admiration of tyrants, attacks on free speech and instinct to use brash threats as a military strategy; and his pledge that if elected he would jail his opponent, something that has no place in American politics.
“Continuing irrational, vulgar, bullying behavior from Trump has confirmed what many of us long suspected: Trump is in no way fit to lead our great nation. Among innumerable examples: His mockery of a disabled journalist, his bragging about sexually assaulting women, his racist tirade against the judge presiding in the Trump University fraud case, his chummy praise for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. In the second presidential debate Trump said he would have a special prosecutor investigate Clinton and put her in jail. Imprisoning one’s political opponent is right out of the Putin playbook.”
“Her opponent, Donald Trump, has shown himself not to measure up to the job. He has an astonishing lack of knowledge about the world and about how government works. Worse, he shows no curiosity to learn. His stunning refusal Wednesday night to say he will accept the results of the election undermines one of the hallmarks of our democracy. And he has no peer in his ability to spout untruths. If that weren’t enough, his temperament disqualifies him. He wants to be president like it’s a trophy to be won, and he would have others do the actual work. That is not leadership.”
Still, the decision to endorse Clinton was easy considering the superior qualifications she has in comparison with her opponent. It comes down to this: A Donald Trump presidency is dangerous.
As promised, the Republican candidate has broken all the rules of politics – but also any sense of decorum and civility along the way. The despicable things he’s said about women and minorities, not to mention the sexual assault allegations, reveal character we would not value in anyone, let alone the leader of a nation that prides itself on freedom and equality.
But Trump — the man is nothing short of a racist, misogynist demagogue with no respect for the rule of law. The foibles of the two candidates aren’t even in the same galaxy. Clinton bends the rules with lawyerly imprecision slathered in hubris and entitlement. Trump stomps on the Constitution one amendment at a time.
“Beyond this, however, in the areas in which we at FP specialize, he has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of the most basic facts of international affairs, let alone the nuances so crucial to the responsibilities of diplomacy inherent in the U.S. president’s daily responsibilities. Trump has not onlypromoted the leadership of a tyrant and menace like Vladimir Putin, but he has welcomed Russian meddling in the current U.S. election. He has alternatively forgiven then defended Russia’s invasion of Crimea and employed advisors with close ties to the Russian president and his cronies. Trump has spoken so cavalierly about the use of nuclear weapons, including a repeated willingness to use them against terrorists, that it has become clear he understands little if anything about America’s nuclear policies — not to mention the moral, legal, and human consequences of such actions. He has embraced the use of torture and the violation of international law against it. He has suggested he would ignoreAmerica’s treaty obligations and would only conditionally support allies in need. He has repeatedly insulted Mexico and proposed policies that would inflame and damage one of America’s most vital trading relationships with that country.”
Evangelicals, of all people, should not be silent about Donald Trump’s blatant immorality.
“Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord. They see that some of us are so self-interested, and so self-protective, that we will ally ourselves with someone who violates all that is sacred to us—in hope, almost certainly a vain hope given his mendacity and record of betrayal, that his rule will save us.”
“Donald J. Trump is the least qualified, most flawed, and most dangerous person ever nominated by a major American political party. He is not the successful businessman he claims to be. He is not the political savior he claims to be.
He is a con man and a liar. He is interested only in promoting his brand name and furthering a megalomaniacal drive to power. His promise to “make America great again” is sheer hucksterism – the empty slogan of a demagogue who this year turned American politics into his latest reality TV show.”
“When Trump beats up on Clinton for her misuse of a private email server as secretary of state—an egregious mistake that the head of the FBI called “extremely careless”—we hear him. But when Trump goes on to ask Russian hackers to continue their apparent assaults on an American election by finding more of Clinton’s emails, even as a wan joke, he takes the side of the arsonists while attacking his opponent for a fire code violation. When he says the press is corrupt and the electoral system is rigged, he’s not acting like someone who wants to lead. He’s acting like someone who demands to be followed.”
“Americans have long prided themselves on their ability to see the world for what it is, as opposed to what someone says it is or what most people happen to believe. In one of the most powerful lines in American literature, Huck Finn says: “It warn’t so. I tried it.” A respect for evidence is not just a part of the national character. It goes to the heart of the country’s particular brand of democratic government. When the founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, scientist and inventor, wrote arguably the most important line in the Declaration of Independence—“We hold these truths to be self-evident”—they were asserting the fledgling nation’s grounding in the primacy of reason based on evidence.
Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it. For more than 170 years we have documented, for better and for worse, the rise of science and technology and their impact on the nation and the world. We have strived to assert in our reporting, writing and editing the principle that decision making in the sphere of public policy should accept the conclusions that evidence, gathered in the spirit and with the methods of science, tells us to be true.”
One of the ironies of this year’s election is to watch conservatives and Republicans, typically associated with favoring limited government and reducing the size of the federal budget and role of the federal government, squirm as they try to defend their party’s decision to support the most outspoken advocate of “big government” to be nominated by either party in a long time. One would have to hearken back to the days of Lyndon Johnson to recall a major party nominee who was simultaneously convinced that everything going on in the United States was a problem that needed to be fixed and that, with him at the helm, the federal government would be able to provide the necessary remedies.
Trump’s commitment to expanding the size and power of the federal government would be remarkable in any election year if he were the nominee of either party. However, it is particularly astonishing in the context of Republican and conservative critiques of the Obama administration and Tea Party critiques of previous Republican administrations. In Trump world, the Constitution is an inconvenience that can be ignored. If you don’t like economic outcomes, the federal government will come to your rescue with restrictions on trade, expansion of the welfare state, and generous tax subsidies to support whatever kind of economic activity Mr. Trump might fancy on that particular day. Law enforcement officials will be given more power to restore order to our society by cracking down on anyone who looks like they might not belong or conform to Trump’s vision of an idealized American. If you think “big brother” has too much access to your personal information and is snooping around too extensively into your private affairs, you need to think again. Trump contends that the only one way to keep us safe is to give law enforcement more power to monitor and punish potential security threats. Perhaps most disturbingly, the Federal Reserve, according to Trump, is really just a money-printing factory that can be used to settle government debt. This will be necessary of course since Trump’s budget plans call for restoring the massive fiscal deficits which gave rise to the Tea Party almost a decade ago and which political leaders from both parties have begrudgingly and belatedly reigned in over the past 5 years.
There are many reasons to be deeply concerned about a Trump presidency. He is a man with a perverse hostility toward telling the truth. He is a man who has never been held accountable for anything in his life. He is arrogant and condescending. He thinks he is better than you and wants you to know it. He doesn’t respect anyone or anything but himself. These character traits should be deeply concerning regardless of what policy positions he is endorsing. However, the fact that he is openly advocating to expand the size and scope of government and increase his power within it makes him a real danger to the American experiment in self-government.
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” -Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863
It is hardly surprising, but ought to be disturbing to every American, that in Trump’s “for the people” land, we are going to set aside 2 out of 3 parts of Lincoln’s formulation. Trump’s agenda might not make sense and it might not be based on fact and it might run counter to our values and traditions, but not to worry. “It’s gonna be great.”