• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"The Economist" endorses O B A M A

C

Chickenhawks

Banned
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
147
Reaction score
49
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Our American endorsement: Which one? | The Economist






As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
Click to expand...
 
The Economist is hardly what I would call "leftist." That being said, look at their decision - go with the devil you know. They also seem to think Romney is untrustworthy, because his economic plan doesn't work unless you "don't believe most of what he says," which must be British double-speak for "yeah, we don't like that guy." By and large, this looks like a decision based on foreign policy to me. Economically speaking, no one can simultaneously agree that stimulus spending can help the economy, and that Obama made sure it was channeled into helpful pursuits. No one.
 
Leftist? No. The people magazine of economics? Yep.
 
Jesus. So now the Economist is a "Leftist" publication.

At long last, conservatives have you no shame left.

Anyway great that a highly respected financial publication supports Obama's and rejects Romney's snakeoil
 
The Economist is leftist like Fox News is leftist.

That's a nice endorsement from Obama. The Economist is one of the most respected journals around.
 
The Economist's editorial board probably looked at Romney's tax return and saw the illegal IRA stuffing and said, no economist can support this guy.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Big surprise. A leftist magazine from the UK endorses Obama.
Click to expand...


Don't forget, Chavez, Castro, and Putin_ Also Endorsed Obama" :) Must be cause he will have more flexability IF, he wins the election, ya think ? :)
 
The Economists does thing like compare the world's economies based on the price of a Big Mac. They are not as obtuse as Forbes. I am not sure why people do not look at it in terms of finance instead of economics, but whatever....
 
From the digital editor of The Economist:

"Generalising hugely, Right-wing parties tend to be fiscally liberal but socially conservative; they think it's OK for companies to do what they like but want to intervene in people's private lives.

Left-wing parties tend to be keener on individual choice in private affairs but think they know better when it comes to spending people's money (via taxation) or regulating the market.

In France, a "liberal" is a right-winger keen on free markets; in the US, a "liberal" is a left-winger keen on letting people make their own personal choices. The Economist is liberal in both these senses."

Either way, The Economist is a garbage publication. I read it once on a flight to London, had a good laugh, and never picked up a copy since.


Gonzo Rodeo said:
The Economist is hardly what I would call "leftist." That being said, look at their decision - go with the devil you know. They also seem to think Romney is untrustworthy, because his economic plan doesn't work unless you "don't believe most of what he says," which must be British double-speak for "yeah, we don't like that guy." By and large, this looks like a decision based on foreign policy to me. Economically speaking, no one can simultaneously agree that stimulus spending can help the economy, and that Obama made sure it was channeled into helpful pursuits. No one.
Click to expand...
 
Pakistan is racist.
 
head of joaquin said:
The Economist's editorial board probably looked at Romney's tax return and saw the illegal IRA stuffing and said, no economist can support this guy.
Click to expand...


Do you actually believe the stuff you spew?
 
Fisher said:
The BBC is wrong but within the margin of error so I will give them a "mostly true"--they forgot to include the United States not wanting him as President as well as Pakistan.
Click to expand...

In 5 more days you will be proven wrong but I'll give you a like for making a funny.
 
Shocking.
.....
 
hmm.. this seems to be another spammer lobbying for support...
 
head of joaquin said:
The Economist's editorial board probably looked at Romney's tax return and saw the illegal IRA stuffing and said, no economist can support this guy.
Click to expand...

What illegal IRA stuffing? Can you link to some evidence, please?
 
head of joaquin said:
Jesus. So now the Economist is a "Leftist" publication.

At long last, conservatives have you no shame left.

Anyway great that a highly respected financial publication supports Obama's and rejects Romney's snakeoil
Click to expand...

I love The Economist, and I wish it didn't lean left, but it does.
 
Just remember google is your friend.
Not going to cite specific sources as any source will be argued as "biased".
How to stuff an IRA in 5 easy steps:
1. Buy two companies:
a. "worthless" company from your IRA for a hundred thousand dollars
and
b. VALUABLE company with your normal capital for tens of millions of dollars.
2. transfer all the assets from the VALUABLE company to the "worthless" company.
3. Your normal capital would "lose" tens of millions for which you get tax write offs
4. IRA "makes" tens of millions, tax free.
5. VIOLA !!! It's called a pop-up!
With tens of millions in your IRA, you can go hog wild with investments and never worry about taxes again.

You or I could not do this but Mitt-A-Sketch can.
BTW it also helps to know where the Cayman Islands are located. :D
 
Chickenhawks said:
Our American endorsement: Which one? | The Economist
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd call it an endorsement. It's almost closer to an insult as it's basically saying they dont think the guy they are closest aligned to (Obama) is that hot, but they think the other guy (Romney) is worse.

I cant see it being adapted to a pithy campaign slogan "My supporters think I'm not quite as **** as my opponent".

Had it said "We support Obama (or Romney) because we think he's good and will deliver on..." then it might have mattered but "better the devil you know..." is really a bit of a back hand endorsement.
 
This is LOL!!!

As AMERICAN publication after publication that endorsed Obama last time endorses Romney this time, the Demo-hacks on this forum RAGED that no one cares about endorsements.

But now when some UK magazine - the UK NOT being in the USA in case anyone didn't notice - they rave of how VITAL that endorsement is!

Like Demo's claiming great significance in Democrat Bloomberg endorsing Obama - when last month Bloomberg's magazine ran as its cover story page after page of religious bigotry attacks against Mormons as an evil empire trying to take over America.

No one but Democrat hacks gives a DAMN what some foreign publication endorses.
 
They also endorsed Obama in 2008 and Kerry in 2004.

And we care about what they think for what reason again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom