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

  • Thanks 2
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 2
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.   

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

17 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I certainly hope that helps! Another Trump presidency would be a disaster for the USA, my home county. 

It did no harm last time as I remember

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

I posted that I hope trump wins, I so far have 4 positive emojis as opposed to 2 negatives.     I guess that could be the basis for another "breaking news " headline   lol

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

14 minutes ago, 300sd said:

Welcome to the Economist opinion site....I thought they were news!

I thought it was just something of interest to the bean counting community, another group of "experts" with a shameful record of incompetence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Any evidence of this?

 

How many months did Johnson hold up the funds at the behest of trump? How about the withholding of weapons to Ukraine until they investigate HB? None of that made any lasting difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Any evidence of this?

Blaming Trump for anything does not require any  evidence as such. Once his name has been mentioned anything negative  can be said and treated as fact.  It appears to be the latest  international internet forum protocol. developed , approved and initiated by the haters

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Economist put it best, per the attachment.

 

Certainly that beats the Wall Street Journal, who decided the felon might be an autocrat wannabe, but he's too stupid to achieve his dreams of Putin-esque rule, so don't worry.  Now THAT is a weak endorsement.

 

 

Economist.jpg

  • Like 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



×
×
  • Create New...