Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 29, 2020

This president calls for his opponents to be locked up; he uses the Department of Justice to conduct vendettas; he commutes the sentences of supporters convicted of serious crimes; he gives his family plum jobs in the White House; and he offers foreign governments protection in exchange for dirt on a rival. When a president casts doubt on the integrity of an election just because it might help him win, he undermines the democracy he has sworn to defend.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Trump is the Sick Man of American politics because he is a sick man in regards to intellect, personality, and soul. He's already proven a willingness to let hundreds of thousands die because of neglect. He can only get a second term if he cheats, but cheating he is, and if he succeeds many more thousands will die out of vengefulness and sadism.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2020-10-29 11:01 AM | Reply

I am quite sure most Trumpers read "The Economist" regularly. Comic book version that is.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2020-10-29 11:05 AM | Reply

The economist is a conservative isn't it?

It's remarkable tat periodicals devoted to medicine, science, and economics that rarely if ever endorse people for President are all saying it's Biden time.

#3 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-29 01:43 PM | Reply

They needed to do this before half of the electorate had already voted.

#4 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2020-10-29 01:54 PM | Reply

The Economist is way outta their lane with this one.
They should change their name to The Democratist.
Economies can do great under authoritarian control.

It's cute to see them try to maintain the facade of Free Choice which is the lie at the heart of Capitalism though!

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-29 02:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Wow, I don't read the Economist much, but they've always stuck me as rather conservative, I know their Drumpf Approval polls have always skewed toward Dotard more than the other polls except for Rasmussen.

#6 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-10-29 02:27 PM | Reply

"Economies can do great under authoritarian control."

No.

Eventually such economies crash and burn hard.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-29 02:39 PM | Reply

"Eventually such economies crash and burn hard."

They do?

Doesn't everything crash... eventually?

But have you seen China's economy over the past 40 years?

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-29 02:51 PM | Reply

"The Economist" is pretty well described by it's name. It's neither left nor right with regards to the content. It's objective.

People tend to think it leans right because it tends to provide analysis that will often clash with progressive doctrine, although they also don't shy away from content that would support progressive ideals.

The Economist also endorsed Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Clinton in 2016.

#9 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-29 02:58 PM | Reply

The Economist also endorsed Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Clinton in 2016.
#9 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

For good economic reasons, as recent history has established.

#10 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-10-29 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'll wager that about 2% of Trump supporters know what The Economist is, and the rest think the reference is to some egghead guy who works at some fancy eastern university and knows Tony Fauci...

#11 | Posted by catdog at 2020-10-29 03:15 PM | Reply

The last time The Economist endorsed a Republican was GWB in 2000.

I would compare The Economist to the New Republic, which despite being regarded by many as a solidly center-right publication, has never endorsed a Republican presidential candidate. The journalism is somewhat similar as well.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-29 03:22 PM | Reply

"But have you seen China's economy over the past 40 years?"

Russia lasted even longer.

#13 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-29 03:25 PM | Reply

"Russia lasted even longer."

Do you mean the Soviet Union?

They had a ------ economy, most of it self-induced as a result of having to adhere to Marxist doctrine.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-29 03:50 PM | Reply

Mao killed more of his own people than any head of state in history.

#15 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-29 10:05 PM | Reply

Mao was the last true Chinese communist. Once he was gone, the country shifted away from socialist economic policy to one being market-driven. The result was a massive increase in wealth creation. In 1978, roughly 90% of Chinese citizens lived in extreme poverty. Now it's less than 2%, and China has more "rich" people than any other country in the world.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-30 01:54 AM | Reply

#15

Yeah...I always find it a bit odd when leftist show reverence to Mao. When it came to killing people, he one-upped both Hitler and Stalin by several orders of magnitude. But, no one said the path to socialism wasn't going to be bloody.

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-30 01:56 AM | Reply

The Economist is a British publication.

#18 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-30 02:02 AM | Reply

But, no one said the path to socialism wasn't going to be bloody.

Posted by madbomber

Another dishonest shill pretending authoritarian communism is 'democratic socialism,' which it isn't. By a mile.

#19 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-10-30 03:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Another dishonest shill pretending authoritarian communism is 'democratic socialism,' which it isn't. By a mile."

Fair enough.

Can you provide me an example of a country that practices democratic socialism?

I bet you can't.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-30 04:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Can you provide me an example of a country that practices democratic socialism?

I bet you can't.
#20 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-10-30 04:20"

worldpopulationreview.com

#21 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2020-10-30 06:24 AM | Reply

#21

The one defining characteristic of every socialist party of every stripe is intent to eliminate capitalist economies.

Please point out which countries in your list are not capitalist.

I couldn't find one. Maybe you can help me.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-30 11:36 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If you start from an incorrect assumption, you will wind up with an incorrect conclusion. Your comment actually has two incorrect assumptions:

1. It's an incorrect assumption that #21 was intended to give information about socialist parties. You requested examples of countries that practice democratic socialism. The link provided in #21 gives you such a list. If you wanted something about every socialist party, then you should have asked for that.

2. It's an incorrect assumption that the "one defining characteristic of every socialist party of every stripe" intends to eliminate capitalist economies. Please provide evidence that proves the sweeping generalization that would apply to EVERY socialist party of EVERY stripe,

#23 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2020-10-30 11:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Please provide evidence that proves the sweeping generalization that would apply to EVERY socialist party of EVERY stripe"

How about this?

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative or of equity. While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element.

en.wikipedia.org

It might be easier if you provided me with evidence of a socialist party that favored capitalism.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-30 04:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

I think what you may be doing is conflating social democracy, which is inherently capitalist, with democratic socialism.

You wouldn't be the first.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-30 04:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

The idiot who doesn't know the difference between fascism and socialism is here to tell you you don't know what you're talking about.

MadTroller missed his opportunity to run QAnon.

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-30 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"It might be easier if you provided me with evidence of a socialist party that favored capitalism.
#24 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-10-30 04:34 PM"

It might be easier if you'd stay on topic.

It's difficult to decide if you're simply confused about the terms you're using or if you're attempting to move the goalposts. Either way, your response does not address the topic.

#27 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2020-10-30 07:44 PM | Reply

"I think what you may be doing is conflating social democracy, which is inherently capitalist, with democratic socialism.
You wouldn't be the first.
#25 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-10-30 04:35 PM"

IRONY ALERT!

#28 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2020-10-30 07:45 PM | Reply

"I think what you may be doing is conflating social democracy, which is inherently capitalist, with democratic socialism."

They conflated themselves.

Read the last sentence:

Wikipedia
Social democracy

Note: This article is about the political ideology within the socialist movement. For the type of capitalism adopted by social democrats in the post-war period, seeDemocratic capitalism. For socialism emphasizing democracy also commonly described as social democracy, seeDemocratic socialism. For the policy regime in Northern Europe commonly described as social democracy, seeNordic model. For the social welfare model in Western Europe sometimes described as social democracy, seeSocial market economy.

Social democracyis apolitical,socialandeconomic philosophywithinsocialism[1]that supportspoliticalandeconomic democracy.[2]As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocatingeconomicandsocial interventionsto promotesocial justicewithin the framework of aliberal-democraticpolityand acapitalist-orientedmixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment torepresentativeandparticipatory democracy, measures forincome redistribution,regulation of the economyin thegeneral interestandsocial-welfareprovisions.[3]Due to longstanding governance by social-democratic parties during thepost-war consensusand their influence on socioeconomic policy in Northern and Western Europe, social democracy became associated withKeynesianism, theNordic model, thesocial-liberalparadigm andwelfare stateswithin political circles in the late 20th century.[4]It has been described as the most common form of Western or modern socialism[5]as well as the reformist wing ofdemocratic socialism.[6]

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-30 08:54 PM | Reply

Wow. Someone buy Wikipedia a space bar.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-30 09:00 PM | Reply

"It's difficult to decide if you're simply confused about the terms you're using or if you're attempting to move the goalposts. Either way, your response does not address the topic."

You're just confused. Or just lack an education.

Socialism cannot exist in a capitalist economy. Period.

You can't have a centrally planned capitalist economy. You can't have a system where the workers own the means of production in a capitalist economy. In theory you could, but it would be as a result of voluntary collaboration, and highly unlikely.

What you can do is achieve some of the minor goals promised by socialism within a capitalist economy. You're never going to get your centrally planned economy or workers owning the means of production, but you can have an interventionist government that harnesses gains within the capitalist system for what voters determine is the good of the nation. That would generally be referred to as a Social Democracy.

I get it that many on the left are nowadays have a love affair with something they think is socialism...but it's not. And maybe it's just people being contrarian. I don't know. What I do know is that Americans who want to live under socialist rule can probably do so. Cuba is only 90 miles south of Florida.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-31 06:07 AM | Reply

" It's difficult to decide if you're simply confused about the terms you're using or if you're attempting to move the goalposts. Either way, your response does not address the topic.'

You're just confused. Or just lack an education.

Socialism cannot exist in a capitalist economy. Period.
...
#31 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-10-31 06:07 AM"

BWAHAHAHA

Much too much irony!

OK, you've wasted enough bandwidth and too much of everyone's time.

Your simplistic view and pontificating generalizations of what is socialism and capitalism belies your ignorance. Since you've apparently elected to avoid any serious research, I'll just pose this challenge:

Please cite an example of a purely capitalist country and a purely socialist country to illustrate your claims!

#32 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2020-11-01 02:25 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort