"The Economist" endorses Kamala Harris
By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believe voters who minimise it are deluding themselves.
[. . . .]
America’s economy is the envy of the world, but that rests on it being an open market which embraces creative destruction, innovation and competition. Sometimes it seems as if Mr Trump wants to return to the 19th century, using tariffs and tax breaks to reward his friends and punish his enemies, as well as to finance the state and minimise trade deficits. Politics could yet wreck the foundations of America’s prosperity.
[. . . .]
The risks for domestic and foreign policy are amplified by the last big difference between Mr Trump’s first term and a possible second one: he would be less constrained. The president who mused about firing missiles at drug labs in Mexico was held back by the people and institutions around him. Since then the Republican Party has organised itself around fealty to Mr Trump. Friendly think-tanks have vetted lists of loyal people to serve in the next administration. The Supreme Court has weakened the checks on presidents by ruling that they cannot be prosecuted for official acts.
[. . . .]
Presidents do not have to be saints and we hope that a second Trump presidency would avoid disaster. But Mr Trump poses an unacceptable risk to America and the world. If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Ms Harris.
https://archive.ph/KiJhD#selection-1139.0-1143.44
[Yes, they have praise for Kamala Harris, but it's muted. They really hate Trump.]
= new reply since forum marked as read
