Jump to content

The Economist Endorses Kamala Harris to Prevent a Second Trump Presidency


Social Media

Recommended Posts

image.png

 

The Economist announced its endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday, citing concerns about the “unacceptable risk” that a second term for former President Donald Trump would pose to both America and the world. The influential U.K.-based publication, which has a history of supporting Democratic candidates in U.S. elections since endorsing John Kerry in 2004, highlighted Trump’s potential impact on critical issues, including economic stability, the rule of law, and global peace.

 

The editorial team at The Economist acknowledged Harris' limitations, describing her as “underwhelming” but ultimately deeming her shortcomings as “ordinary” and not disqualifying. They argue that Harris, despite her perceived flaws, represents a far safer choice for America and its role on the global stage than her Republican opponent. The editors underscore the gravity of the choice facing American voters, stating, “By making Mr. Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace.”

 

The publication’s endorsement comes amid mounting concern among international economists and leaders over Trump’s policy proposals and governance style. Recently, nearly two dozen Nobel Prize-winning economists publicly expressed their support for Harris’ economic plans, describing them as “vastly superior” to Trump’s. In their statement, The Economist editorial team underscored the dangers they see in Trump’s potential return to office. “We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can,” they explain, further cautioning voters against underestimating the risks. “But we believe voters who minimize it are deluding themselves.”

 

As Harris continues to campaign, endorsements like The Economist’s add a dimension of international perspective to the U.S. election, particularly from an established, respected voice known for its global outlook. The publication's assessment reflects not only concerns about domestic issues but also a broader apprehension over how American leadership influences global stability and economic progress.

 

Based on a report by Daily Beast 2024-11-02

 

news-logo-btm.jpg

 

news-footer-4.png

 

image.png

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

               Wow the power of the press eh?    surely the words " in an attempt to "     or "      with the aim of"  have been accidentally missed out.       

                 I mean It's hardly a forgone conclusion,  I have no idea what its circulation is but I bet it's  nowhere near enough to have any effect, how many Americans would change their vote due to the views of a few bean counters, who in  general are about as popular as politicians and estate agents.  I don't think Trump trashed the economy last time did he?  How did Biden get on ?

              Not a day goes by without somebody feeling the need to tell us how Trump is , without doubt, going to lose,  Its as if they feel that by constantly repeating it will become reality 

               It also seems, to me anyway,  that the democrats and their "team" can't actually open their mouths without attacking Trump,  they never seem to have much to say about themselves

                

  • Sad 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Perhaps you've missed it, but the felon cannot open his mouth without:

 

1) Lying

 

2) Calling anyone who doesn't worship him 'deranged', a 'loser', or the target of a nickname such as Pocahontas, Crooked, Sleepy, Pencil Neck, Kamabla, etc., and this includes all of those former "Best People" who saw him in action and believes he is ignorant, a clown, or a threat to democracy and the rule of law, such as Gen Kelley, Gen Milley, Esper, Pence, Gary Cohn, McMaster, Bolton, Gen Mattis, Tillerson, Barr, Coats and others.

 

3) Boasting about how "Nobody knows more about (e.g., nuclear, ISIS, debt, trade, business, etc.) than me", or how whatever he did is "best ever", or "some people say they've never seen anything like it...blah blah blah"

 

4) Claiming "In two weeks, we'll be releasing a plan about that, which many people are saying is unbelievable", when in reality he doesn't even have the "concept of a plan". Best example is his healthcare plan, now almost 9 years in the making and still only a concept of a plan.

 

5) Trying to schlepp some Chinese-made product such as bibles, watches, golden sneakers, etc.

 

Critics of Harris have an odd filter. It's perfectly okay for the felon to be lawless, but it's unacceptable for Harris to be flawless. Lots of sexual bias and misogyny inherent in those views, as no male candidate is ever held to the standard of perfection critics make of Harris.

All standard political rhetoric and posturing, indulged in by all of them.   

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the news media generally is dead. They are all biased and their news can't be trusted. The times are changing. Who in their right mind goes to ABC/CNN/MSNBC/CBS/Etc. to learn about what is happening? More and more people get their unbiased news from podcasts, interviews, and various non-legacy media sources nowadays. 

  • Sad 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

               Wow the power of the press eh?    surely the words " in an attempt to "     or "      with the aim of"  have been accidentally missed out.       

                 I mean It's hardly a forgone conclusion,  I have no idea what its circulation is but I bet it's  nowhere near enough to have any effect, how many Americans would change their vote due to the views of a few bean counters, who in  general are about as popular as politicians and estate agents.  I don't think Trump trashed the economy last time did he?  How did Biden get on ?

              Not a day goes by without somebody feeling the need to tell us how Trump is , without doubt, going to lose,  Its as if they feel that by constantly repeating it will become reality 

               It also seems, to me anyway,  that the democrats and their "team" can't actually open their mouths without attacking Trump,  they never seem to have much to say about themselves

                

I think it's fashionable and the accepted thing for expats to be Far Left Liberals. "Trump's bad. He's Hitler." etc. It makes for good conversation in bars.

  • Confused 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, renaissanc said:

I think it's fashionable and the accepted thing for expats to be Far Left Liberals. "Trump's bad. He's Hitler." etc. It makes for good conversation in bars.

I think the majority of ex pats are pretty much ambivalent to be honest, its just that the lefties are so vocal , so argumentative,  and so unable to talk about anything other than "leftiness"  that its pointless engaging with them , so  we all get a false impression , I reckon there are actually very few of them in reality

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

global peace.

They seem somewhat stupid then. He started no new wars first time around, ergo the world was more peaceful during his time as POTUS. Harris was VP while 1 major war started and another conflict started that looks like expanding into a full blown M E war. Both only continue with her full collusion and support.

 

So a man that started no wars vs a warmonger, yet the Economist claims he is a threat to global peace. Can't make stuff like this up.

Indeed , his previous term as president was in reality relatively uneventful, he didn;t crash the economy or start a war,   yet now he is considered to be the reincarnation of Hitler?   Unbelievable to be honest, he deserves to win just on account of the resilience he has shown whilst under constant attack . Lesser men (or women) would have crumbled a long time ago

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

global peace.

They seem somewhat stupid then. He started no new wars first time around, ergo the world was more peaceful during his time as POTUS. Harris was VP while 1 major war started and another conflict started that looks like expanding into a full blown M E war. Both only continue with her full collusion and support.

 

So a man that started no wars vs a warmonger, yet the Economist claims he is a threat to global peace. Can't make stuff like this up.

 

21st century Leftist come from 3 camps:

. communists

. the intellectually dishonest

. Lenin's "useful idiots"

 

And there are hybrids of all three. 

 

It explains much.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Indeed , his previous term as president was in reality relatively uneventful, he didn;t crash the economy or start a war,   yet now he is considered to be the reincarnation of Hitler?   Unbelievable to be honest, he deserves to win just on account of the resilience he has shown whilst under constant attack . Lesser men (or women) would have crumbled a long time ago

If Harris suffered half the attacks Trump does she would have never come out of her bunker till it was all over.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member




×
×
  • Create New...