New York Times Editorial Board Rips Apart Donald Trump in Single Paragraph

The editorial board of The New York Times just eviscerated Donald Trump in a single paragraph.

Here it is in full, with its original hyperlinks to other Times’ coverage of Trump preserved:

“You already know Donald Trump. He is unfit to lead. Watch him. Listen to those who know him best. He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences. Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It’s his whole ethos. He lies without limit. If he’s re-elected, the G.O.P. won’t restrain him. Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents. He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations. He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers. Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances and strengthen autocrats. Americans should demand better. Vote.”

The owners of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times fear the retribution of a Trump presidency and refuse to endorse Kamala Harris. The NYT has no fear as it has been owned by the same family for more than 100 years.

Los Angeles Times Editorial Board is Overruled

Mariel Garza, the editorials editor of the Los Angeles Times, resigned on Wednesday after the newspaper’s owner blocked the editorial board’s plans to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president.

“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza in a conversation with Columbia University School of Journalism. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

Terry Tang is Executive Editor, Los Angeles Times.

Terry,

Ever since Dr. Soon-Shiong vetoed the editorial board’s plan to endorse Kamala Harris for president, I have been struggling with my feelings about the implications of our silence.

I told myself that presidential endorsements don’t really matter; that California was not ever going to vote for Trump; that no one would even notice; that we had written so many “Trump is unfit” editorials that it was as if we had endorsed her.

But the reality hit me like cold water Tuesday when the news rippled out about the decision not to endorse without so much as a comment from the LAT management, and Donald Trump turned it into an anti-Harris rip.

Of course it matters that the largest newspaper in the state—and one of the largest in the nation still—declined to endorse in a race this important. And it matters that we won’t even be straight with people about it.

It makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist. How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger—who we previously endorsed for the US Senate?

The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races. People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner.

Seven years ago, the editorial board wrote this in its series about Donald Trump “Our Dishonest President”: “Men and women of conscience can no longer withhold judgment. Trump’s erratic nature and his impulsive, demagogic style endanger us all.”

I still believe that’s true.

In these dangerous times, staying silent isn’t just indifference, it is complicity. I’m standing up by stepping down from the editorial board. Please accept this as my formal resignation, effective immediately.

Mariel

Incendiary Rhetoric Likely to become more Harsh as Election Day approaches

J.D. Vance warns calling a candidate a ‘fascist’ can lead to violence but doesn’t mention that’s what Trump calls Harris. Trump also called Harris a communist.

Presidential historian on Monday’s CNN NewsNight panelist Tim Naftali suggested in the aftermath of the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump that Trump made himself a bigger target by “using the rhetoric of the 30s.” Fortunately, New York Post reporter Lydia Moynihan and CNN commentator Scott Jennings were also there to recall the violent rhetoric and “bunch of lies” directed towards Trump over the past several years.

Naftali declared, “I remember so well July 13th. And I remember the conversations in the days that followed. I remember President Biden’s speech about toning down the rhetoric, and I saw the rhetoric toned down on both sides and then 20 minutes into his acceptance speech, Donald Trump turned up the volume.”

Both Vance and the former president, who said Democrats calling him (Trump) a “threat to democracy” is “what is causing me to be shot at,” have been cited for the hypocrisy of their pleas to deescalate incendiary discourse.

Could someone get shot and killed? The answer is YES! There has already been two efforts to kill Donald Trump.

Olympics: Lots of medals. Lots of skin colors. See the connection?

Diversity shows its value in the makeup of Team USA

By Michele Norris, Washington Post

August 10, 2024 at 1:24 p.m. EDT

Right-wing warriors can rail against diversity, equity and inclusion all they want. But the same so-called patriots who aggressively wrap themselves in the flag and claim America as their country cannot be blind to what is on display for all the world to see at the Paris Olympics.

Diversity is now a core part of America’s brand. In gymnastics and swimming. In fencing and rugby. In skateboarding, tennis, boxing, basketball and so much more. In commentary from Snoop Dogg and Flavor Flav. In the massive billboards all over Paris from U.S.-based companies like Nike and Ralph Lauren that feature brown-skinned models. And let’s not forget the music that’s played to pump upthe audience at all the events — whether or not Americans are competing. I was at the Paris Olympics for a few days,and at every venue I visited, American music with a funky beat was the go-to choice to fire upcrowds and athletes from all over the world. As we watch Americans rack up medals, that retrograde Trumpian Make America Great Again message seems silly; America is clearly pretty great right now.

You cannot cheer for the United States in this moment without also cheering on the diversity born of merit. And that is an important point because the ammunition used to instill fears about diversity in a changing America are based on the false notion that Black and Brown people are getting something they don’t deserve.

That is the fib at the heart of the orchestrated effort to dismantle diversity programs. It assumes that the only way to achieve diversity is by bringing on people of color who have lesser skills or qualifications than White candidates. This is what feeds the idea —no, make that the lie — that under credentialed people of color are pushing White candidates out of their rightful place.

Diversity is not about lowering standards. It’s about widening the aperture to make sure an organization can find the best talent available. It’s about reaching beyond one’s comfort zone or personal network to look for talent and potential in areas that might be unfamiliar. So often, access to opportunity is based on something sociologists call “homosociality” – friendship, mentoring, social circles and cliques based on commonality and comfort. It’s the jolt of reassurance or even relief at finding someone who appears to be the right fit because they have the right background and the right skin color, they went to the right school, they engage in the right sports (golf or sport fishing, for instance), or they speak in the right vernacular. People drift to the familiar. It’s human nature.

This is why the world of sports provides a useful antidote. While sports teams and athletic organizations may have limited their scope of recruitment in the past — based on tradition, bias or the belief that certain kinds of people lacked certain innate characteristics — that line of thinking has eroded faster in sport than other sectors. Remember: It wasn’t that long ago that Black men were not considered quarterback material.

Coaches and recruiters will go where the talent is and cast an ever-widening net to find it. Why? Because they know that talent is equally distributed but opportunity is not. They know that the potential for greatness percolates in all kinds of places, and if they spot it early, they can nurture it toward victory without lowering standards. And they know that staying in their personal socio-economic comfort zonescould keep them from winning.

The Olympic Games are about winning — and so much more. I’ve always loved watching the Games on TV with my family in part because of the learning experience it provides: calmness under pressure. Grace in defeat. People from all over the world coming together to chase their dreams. After a year of pugilistic politics and attacks on diversity programs, the Olympics once again deliver an avalanche of life lessons.

At a time when members of one political party will not commit to accepting the outcome of the upcoming election, it is heartening to watch top athletes shake hands with the competitors who beat them and step aside so the victors can bask in their earned glory. And the mosaic of diverse athletes — often in sports that until recently did not include many people of color — is also a reflection of American values and the cultural diversity at the core of this multiethnic country.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t cheer on Team USA without cheering on the diversity that makes Team USA great.

Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law

By Joe Biden, Published in The Washington Post

July 29, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. EDT

The writer is president of the United States.

This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.

But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office.

If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences.

And that’s only the beginning.

On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality.

I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.

What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.

That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.

First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.

Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.

Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans— as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.

We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.

In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.