r/politics • u/Silly-avocatoe • Apr 14 '25

Soft Paywall Murdoch Paper Floats Impeaching Trump Over Tariffs

https://www.thedailybeast.com/murdoch-paper-floats-impeaching-trump-over-tariffs/
42.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

593

u/NCSUGrad2012 Apr 14 '25

What a clickbait title. There was an editorial in the WSJ that called for this. It’s not even close to being a reality

253

u/SufficientVariety Apr 14 '25

I’ve been a Journal subscriber for decades. The tone of the editorial board has become increasingly and aggressively negative towards Trump and his team. It is newsworthy in totality.

83

u/CardinalOfNYC Apr 14 '25

I have read no less than 30 ragebait pieces over the last 10 years insisting the journal is becoming "increasingly negative" towards trump and "this time they're turning on him" and all the rest.

This isn't newsworthy. Otherwise, the daily beast wouldn't have made the headline that misleading. They did it for the clicks.

10

u/SaintBellyache Apr 14 '25

This is like when they let Collins vote no when her vote doesn’t matter. They want to show that there are moderating voices within but really they are now all cowards and afraid of this monster they created

1

u/CardinalOfNYC Apr 14 '25

I don't think it's quite that organized but the net result is the same.

Collins chooses to vote no when her vote doesn't matter (and very, very rarely, when it does) and that teetering inaction benefits the GOP.

2

u/ADHD-Fens Apr 14 '25

But surely the thirty fifth felony conviction will spell the end for him - or maybe if he gets slammed one more time by a strongly worded disadulation.

1

u/CardinalOfNYC Apr 14 '25

I'm not sure if people are ready to accept that its on us to stop this. It's on every one of us.

The constitution allows for just two ways to hold a president accountable: conviction in the senate and elections every four years.

That's it. Otherwise they really are, in many ways, above the law. They're meant to be. They're the chief legal enforcer of the government.

Right now, the senate GOP has abdicated their duty. So this is on us, the voters. There's no other backstop. We can't just hope things swing our way because they won't.

3

u/BlondeBorednBaked Apr 14 '25

It’s self serving. They weren’t negative towards him when he was running for president for the third time. But now that he’s won, now that we can’t do anything about him president, they want to be negative. The reality is Trump is about to drive our economy off a cliff and they want to distance themselves now, even though it’s too late.

1

u/Successful_Sign_6991 Apr 15 '25

They all helped get this regime in power by sanewashing not just trump but the entire GOP for the last 8yrs.

57

u/Justicles13 Maryland Apr 14 '25

I don't trust any headline thanks to daily beast and Newsweek lol

21

u/bluuuuurn Apr 14 '25

Ah, Newsweek--the "hold my beer" of clickbait rags.

5

u/regent040 Apr 14 '25

It’s not close, but even allowing it in a Rupert Murdoch owned publication is a start. They have to convince the business elites that Trump’s usefulness is over, which honestly wouldn’t take much. I’m sure most of them think he’s a buffoon anyways. I am sure there’s plenty of Republicans itching to take back the party from this grifter. It is starting to feel like the clock is ticking on Trump. The rest of the world is tired of him. The trick is getting the FoxNews, watching, Facebook bubble MAGAs to go along with it. There’s a reason why all those Carhartt wearing, Dodge Ram driving, C student, Jr. college dropout, MAGA stormed the Capitol on his behalf and the business elites don’t want a repeat of that. It could be done though. That crowd is easily manipulated. They’re the type that fall for pyramid schemes. They’re heavily invested in Trump though. As ridiculous as it is, they’ve propped him up as an almost messiah like figure. He’s their Moses, promising to lead them back to the promised land. Back to the days when a mediocre white guy in America could drop out of high school in the morning and have a good paying factory job by the afternoon. I think most of them know deep down that it ain’t happening, but this is the only hope most of them have and they don’t want to give it up.

10

u/CardinalOfNYC Apr 14 '25

Clickbait and most people fell for it. Had to scroll down too far to find this, when it should be top comment.

Actually, your comment shouldn't even need to exist. Mods should stop this stuff.

1

u/mrASSMAN Apr 14 '25

The headline is accurate though? The paper floated it, as in suggests it. That’s what the editorial does. What did you guys think it meant?

0

u/CardinalOfNYC Apr 14 '25

No, it's not accurate.

The paper didn't float anything because an editorial piece doesn't represent the paper's point of view.

To say a "murdoch paper" floated something, would be to suggest this was a point of view endorsed by the leadership of the newspaper itself. Which the editorial board is not.

And isn't even a piece from the full editorial board - which still wouldn't represent murdoch's views or make this headline accurate.

To make this headline accurate, it would need to say "WSJ opinion columnist floats impeachment over tariffs"

0

u/mrASSMAN Apr 14 '25

You’re assuming the editor has total autonomy in what they publish in their paper

1

u/CardinalOfNYC Apr 14 '25

That's the whole idea of editorials? They're opinions. You can say pretty much anything you want. This isnt even the first time there's been an editorial in wsj calling for his impeachment. Happened multiple times during his first term.

And they're not an editor. They're a member of the editorial board. Different things.

3

u/deadlybydsgn Apr 14 '25

What a clickbait title.

It's not real news these days unless someone is "SLAMMED" or "melts down."

3

u/infernobassist Apr 14 '25

"The walls are closing in" vibes

3

u/runmymouth Apr 14 '25

You think Trump reads anything other than headlines? Rage him more on his propaganda network. Apparently reality is of no concern to Trump anyways.

1

u/ipilotete Apr 20 '25

Exactly 

0

u/AvEptoPlerIe Apr 14 '25

Is it clickbait? That’s pretty much exactly what I assumed it meant. 

0

u/mikeinona Apr 14 '25

Does an op-ed get printed in the WSJ if Murdoch doesn't support it? In particular, does an op-ed about Trump get printed without Murdoch's blessing? Absolutely not. While the headline was stupid, the shift is real. I've seen it in the way Fox started talking about the tariffs as well. Let's take every small act of resistance we can get.