Economist Endorses Obama

[trojanma]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I have to admit that i was surprised by that.

In a nutshell they admitted they werent happy with Obama, but were worried that Romney would pander to the increasingly radical elements of the Republican Party.

[phins_4_ever]

What a socialist magazine.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tetragrammaton]

Republican platform speeches have moved so far to the right that even traditional liberal sources have no choice but to prefer Obama. Obama is in many ways to the right of Nixon and Reagan, and those are the kinds of politicians that they would have loved at the time.

[Buddy]

They are based in London and would likely have a more left-leaning and world-view perspective. They are probably more concerned with what is best for the EU and Britain rather than what is best for the US. You also have to consider whether they support Keynesian economics, which would wholly support Obama's policies and viewpoint on the economy. I, on the other hand, reject Keynesian economics and think that the government should keep their hands off of the economy - especially during a recession. Nevertheless, this could be a fairly important endorsement for any undecided voters concerned about the economy.

[Tetragrammaton]

They are based in London and would likely have a more left-leaning and world-view perspective. They are probably more concerned with what is best for the EU and Britain rather than what is best for the US. You also have to consider whether they support Keynesian economics, which would wholly support Obama's policies and viewpoint on the economy. I, on the other hand, reject Keynesian economics and think that the government should keep their hands off of the economy - especially during a recession. Nevertheless, this could be a fairly important endorsement for any undecided voters concerned about the economy.

They endorsed Reagan in 1980, Bob Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, John Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008. They are a right-wing newspaper, although still one of the best.

[jared81]

Republican platform speeches have moved so far to the right that even traditional liberal sources have no choice but to prefer Obama. Obama is in many ways to the right of Nixon and Reagan, and those are the kinds of politicians that they would have loved at the time.

What is your explanation for the Iowa paper that always endorses the democrat, endorsing Romney? Or how about the Orlando sentinel which you know is considered the "slantniel" for its left wing leanings, supporting Romney?

[Spesh]

What is your explanation for the Iowa paper that always endorses the democrat, endorsing Romney? Or how about the Orlando sentinel which you know is considered the "slantniel" for its left wing leanings, supporting Romney?

If your seriously asking, their entire premise was "which candidate will House Republicans work with". They stated that the House refused to work with Obama even when it was in their best interest the last 4 years, and that if Obama were to be reelected nothing would probably change. I made a post not to long ago about this, but ill go ahead and throw it up here. From the Washington Post(and i fully understand people will declare this dirty liberal media, but heres the article):

In endorsement after endorsement, the basic argument is that President Obama hasn’t been able to persuade House or Senate Republicans to work with him. If Obama is reelected, it’s a safe bet that they’ll continue to refuse to work with him. So vote Romney!

That’s not even a slight exaggeration. Take the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest and most influential paper. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008. But this year, they
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Romney.

Why? In the end, they said, it came down to a simple test. “Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.”

The Orlando Sentinel also endorsed Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012, and their reasoning is similar to the Register’s. “The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans,” they
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. “It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years.”

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


For my take on that situation, giving into blackmail and incentivising politicians that not govern is a dangerous move.

[Buddy]

For my take on that situation, giving into blackmail and incentivising politicians that not govern is a dangerous move.

Come on man, let's be honest about what has happened the past four years. You mention above that house and senate Republicans have not worked with Obama and the liberals but no one seems to be concerned that Obama and the liberal congressmen have refused to work with the conservatives. Obama had a super majority in the house and senate his first two years and he, Pelosi, and Reid rammed insane spending, Obamacare, and the like down the nation's throat. Then, when America speaks with their ballot and turns over the house, he wants to cry that no one wants to play nice. No one speaks of Obama's or Reid's obstructionism. No one speaks of the absence of a budget for four freaking years! No wonder we are broke and in debt! No one speaks of buying votes with phones or the nearly 1000 executive orders for everything he can't ram through congress. I think that the house republicans stopped us from sliding past the point of no return by at least hand-cuffing Obama. I think that it speaks volumes of how liberal and outside of traditional American values that Obama's adgenda is that he has successfully cast those who stand for traditional American values and conservative ideals as the "radicals" and that no one on the other side of the isle will work with him. No other president in the past 50 years has been stone-walled by congress like Obama has and that is not indicative of partisan politics, it is indicative of how "progressive" and contrary to American values Obama's agenda truly is. Wake up from the media fog and see what is going on...the man is running America into the ground.

[WadeCounty1231]

Republicans also just buried a report stating that their view that lower top end tax rates creating jobs is incorrect.

[Spesh]

Come on man, let's be honest about what has happened the past four years. You mention above that house and senate Republicans have not worked with Obama and the liberals but no one seems to be concerned that Obama and the liberal congressmen have refused to work with the conservatives. Obama had a super majority in the house and senate his first two years and he, Pelosi, and Reid rammed insane spending, Obamacare, and the like down the nation's throat. Then, when America speaks with their ballot and turns over the house, he wants to cry that no one wants to play nice. No one speaks of Obama's or Reid's obstructionism. No one speaks of the absence of a budget for four freaking years! No wonder we are broke and in debt! No one speaks of buying votes with phones or the nearly 1000 executive orders for everything he can't ram through congress. I think that the house republicans stopped us from sliding past the point of no return by at least hand-cuffing Obama. I think that it speaks volumes of how liberal and outside of traditional American values that Obama's adgenda is that he has successfully cast those who stand for traditional American values and conservative ideals as the "radicals" and that no one on the other side of the isle will work with him. No other president in the past 50 years has been stone-walled by congress like Obama has and that is not indicative of partisan politics, it is indicative of how "progressive" and contrary to American values Obama's agenda truly is. Wake up from the media fog and see what is going on...the man is running America into the ground.

Obama tried to work with Republicans countless times. He was more then willing to bend over, which is why, for example, we do not have a public option in Obamacare despite the fact he "shoved it down their throats". Obama spent most of 2011 working with Boehner...only for Boehner to walk away. Republican candidates ran entire campaigns on the promise of "no compromise!!!", im certain everyone here has seen the video of McConnell declaring its their job to make sure Obama is a one term president. Im not going to go through every single instance or case(this is not the thread for that), but to say Obama and the liberals refused to work with conservatives is simply untrue.

Im not going to even touch to "traditional American values" thing, thats to laughable. For someone like me, with our history of overcoming discrimination, Republican positions of equal pay for women and gay rights are anti-American values. I often find that those who use that line(Michele Bachmann comes to mind) cant define what "American values" are.

What is beyond dispute is the numbers. Since Republicans have taken over filibusters have shot through the roof. You cant tell me that "they were just protecting American(!!) values" and Obama had 400 bad ideas....especially since a chunk of that 400 came before he was even elected. I dont even think he was a candidate when those numbers started pilling up.

But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, a historic record.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you wanted to make a thread about how Reid and company filibustered under Bush, id probably agree. They did it and the rate was higher then it was previously. But numbers alone show that Republicans, in all to typical fashion these days, reacted vindictively and in a kneejerk way. The numbers just skyrocketed. They got shut down a few times under Bush, Obama spoke mean about them a few times after winning the presidency, some rich people were presented as villians in the publics eyes: so Democrats had to pay...no matter how sensible the bill they are blocking is. And thats wrong. Thats not governing. No matter how mean Obama was to them or how bad the idea he presented them was, it was conservative politicians job to work through it and build compromises. Instead, they shut it down or banked on the Supreme Court to do their jobs for them.

Much like it says in the link i presented, its sets a dangerous precedence for both parties if this blackmail is rewarded. Its not beyond imagining that the minority will only try and sabotage the majority and refuse to compromise about anything. That is not beyond imagining because weve just lived through it.