TomatoPie wrote:FWIW, The Economist has great content, but some godawful run-on sentences in the prose. Yeah, it's a lotta content to crank out in a week, but hire an editor.

Hmm. Don't recall ever noticing that. I like how they publish letters from people correcting their grammar and usage.

mozartpc27 wrote:This is a magazine by and for captains of industry which loves loves loves anything that puts downward pressure on wages.

As an obvious example of this: why do you think the magazine's management founded and has stuck with a policy of not giving by-lines to its columnists?

mozartpc27 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:This is a magazine by and for captains of industry which loves loves loves anything that puts downward pressure on wages.

As an obvious example of this: why do you think the magazine's management founded and has stuck with a policy of not giving by-lines to its columnists?

Dunno. But left-center-right is always a matter of perspective. They may be center or center-right in Europe - they are still left of center here. Democrats read it and agree, conservatives read it and often disagree.

TomatoPie wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:This is a magazine by and for captains of industry which loves loves loves anything that puts downward pressure on wages.

As an obvious example of this: why do you think the magazine's management founded and has stuck with a policy of not giving by-lines to its columnists?

Dunno. But left-center-right is always a matter of perspective. They may be center or center-right in Europe - they are still left of center here. Democrats read it and agree, conservatives read it and often disagree.

Democrats and conservatives are not comparable qualifiers, so try again

There aren't an equal amount of republicans and democrats in this country.

Just like left leaning MSNBC.

pacino wrote:

TPie wrote:left-center-right is always a matter of perspective. They may be center or center-right in Europe - they are still left of center here. Democrats read it and agree, conservatives read it and often disagree.

Democrats and conservatives are not comparable qualifiers, so try again

there are more racists & fascists than identifiable conservatives in the R party

true fact

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:left-center-right is always a matter of perspective. They may be center or center-right in Europe - they are still left of center here. Democrats read it and agree, conservatives read it and often disagree.

Democrats and conservatives are not comparable qualifiers, so try again[/quote

there are more racists & fascists than identifiable conservatives in the R party

true fact

There's no question that the GOP is a Grand Old Phugphest. Which is why I don't think of GOP and conservative as the same, or even similar. The GOP is mostly self-serving, just like the Democrats. Both parties ready to exploit any person or group for their own financial gain.

But all that gets off the main issue, which is that The Economist is left of center. Left of the American center.

TomatoPie wrote:But all that gets off the main issue, which is that The Economist is left of center. Left of the American center.

but literally, larry, what got us "off the main issue" was your inapt formulation: "conservatives:democrats"

TomatoPie wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:This is a magazine by and for captains of industry which loves loves loves anything that puts downward pressure on wages.

As an obvious example of this: why do you think the magazine's management founded and has stuck with a policy of not giving by-lines to its columnists?

Dunno. But left-center-right is always a matter of perspective. They may be center or center-right in Europe - they are still left of center here. Democrats read it and agree, conservatives read it and often disagree.

Trick comment. Trump conservatives can't read.

JFLNYC wrote:
Trick comment. Trump conservatives can't read.

Dumpf supporters indeed can't read. And none of them are conservatives.

they're plenty conservative, just maybe not your incredibly narrow version of it

The Economist is pretty much Country Club Republican, but it's always a bit of a hazard to impose the US's weird political characterizations on the rest of the world. The Economist is pro-business, internationalist, pro-free trade (which includes not just free trade in capital but also labor therefore it believes in something as close to open borders as possible) and libertarian. It's pretty much pro-EU, and will surely argue fiercely against Brexit. For a long time, it rejected climate change, though once is acknowledged that it was indeed happening, it did so with great gusto. I'm pretty sure it supported the US/British invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Its recent editorial on Trump was sobering, and reflects pretty clearly an establishment Republican view of him.

The highly "reliable" polls of national election match-up (found on RCP) has Sanders doing better than his GOP counterparts and Kasich doing the best vs. Hillary.

I was thinking about this earlier. The Bernie people complain about the super delegates stuff but it does make it harder for someone unelectable like trump to get the nomination. If you assume that the point of the primary isn't to be democratic but to give you the best chance to win in November it seems like their system does a pretty good job.

GOLD JERRY GOLD

pacino wrote:they're plenty conservative, just maybe not your incredibly narrow version of it

hmmmm. Reactionary, xenophobic, sexist, racist, nativist, ignorant, fearful, yes. 'Classic' conservative, not really that much. Contemporary American self-described 'conservative', aw hell yeah.

Bunch of black protesters got kicked out of a trump rally today. Then another Asian girl did too. Not before Trump could ask if she was from Mexico.

See, his vetting process is working.

I was at a poli sci thing this weekend and people really liked my Ted Cruz/Frank Burns comparison. Wish I could monetize that.