4 ms·

Trump presidency rated among top 10 global risks: EIU

24 points by SimplyUseless 11y ago

guard-of-terra 11y ago
Maybe you should stop demonizing this particular guy? After all, nobody wrote panic reports about GWB, did they?
- parenthephobia 11y ago
  Because nobody panicked about GWB, we shouldn't panic about Trump? Even if it was true, how would that be a sensible argument?
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    You should not panic, and you should panic even less about herd-propagated non-issues.
- hackbinary 11y ago
  But GWB was from a 'Good' family of the American aristocracy. (Yes I know the USA is technically a 'classless' society and does not have an upperclass in law (de jure), but it does have an upper class in practice (de facto).)
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  Wasn't that a mistake in retrospect?
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
I remember a lot of apocalyptic predictions were made about Ronald Reagan when he first was elected. He was going to start a new world war, he would recklessly use nuclear weapons, there would be massive oppression of human rights, etc. Ironically, however, the Reagan era was a remarkably peaceful time, with tremendous economic growth and very little military action other than the brief intervention in Grenada.
- arethuza 11y ago
  "He was going to start a new world war" He almost did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 However, to his credit he learned from this mistake and decided to take a less confrontational line with the Soviets - a change that he deserves a lot of credit for. Edit: See "Arsenals of Folly" by Richard Rhodes.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Wikipedia, eh? The deployment of short range nuclear missiles into the European theater was a deliberate strategy to unsettle the Soviets and force them to the negotiating table. And it worked. It also of course sparked youth protests all across western Europe; they were concerned that "warmonger" Reagan was going to use them as the battlefield in his chess game with the Soviets. Pentagon strategists talked of using tactical nukes to destroy Soviet armies. Yes it was scary times, but we won. The Soviets are gone, and the 80s-90s were a period of unparalleled prosperity in the U.S. and much of the world actually.
- earlyriser 11y ago
  It's rare that predictions are fulfilled. People have more grey than b&w. However he made lots of errors that had future consequences, not right in his era: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/06/03/ronald-reagan-worst-president-ever http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/06/03/ronald-reagan-w...
mvdwoord 11y ago
I'm more afraid of Hillary becoming president actually. That would pretty much guarantee more wars and grand theft/banksterism.
- j1z0 11y ago
  Hillary guarantee more wars than a man who is openly prejudiced and hostile to both Muslims and Mexicans? As Secretary of State did she not work on building foreign relationships and brokering peace deals? Why would you say her election guarantees war?
  - AJ007 11y ago
    She does not have a good track record and is a well known hawk. Many, many people have been killed, injured, and displaced thanks to policies she strongly advocated for in Libya and Syria. As for Trump, no one has any idea what he will do. He is a wild card.
  - throw677677676 11y ago
    Hillary was involved in Serbia, Iraq, Libya and now Syria. She is more likely to escalate war with Russia, China, Iran or any other possible target. I dont live in USA, and I do not care about your internal politics, but Hillary would be dissaster for entire world.
  - falsestprophet 11y ago
    Is having and enforcing immigration laws prejudiced and hostile to Mexicans? If it is prejudiced and hostile at all, then every country is prejudiced and hostile to almost every other country. That includes Mexico to central American countries.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Modern wars don't arise from prejudice. They usually arise from the ill-placed desire to help or solve problems. You know what people with prejudices do? They keep distance. When a person have a history of using force as a solution ("just apply more") - that's trouble.
ThomPete 11y ago
Trump rhetoric != Trump politics This is something that the media have completely failed to address. Take something like illegal immigrants. You don't find a single politician in the US or in Europe for that matter who would ever say that they are ok with illegal immigrant. There is more or less complete political consensus around this subject yet Trump managed through rhetorics to make it look like there is deep political disagreement, simply by saying he wants to build a wall and make the Mexican government pay for it. Everyone from left to right fell for it but when you look at it Trumps political are actually quite moderate. Fundamentally he is for gay marriage, for legalization of some drugs, he isn't very religious, his taxation politics are fundamentally to lower taxes for small businesses but remove deductions, he is fundamentally in agreement with most of Affordable Healthcare Act (especially the part about preexisting conditions which is one of the most important parts of it) and he is a business man who basically need the common man to do well so that many of his enterprises can do well, hardly someone who wants to go to war. He is also against the trade agreements. Which is hurtigt average americans who don't get to benefit from globalization. The real crime here is that the media haven't called his bluff and instead of giving us proper analysis they gave us the juicy headlines that he is in almost infinite supply of. Because that is what sells. Trump rhetoric is vulgar and over the top but he is talking to a bunch of people who have never been heard and who have never felt like they had a voice. Trump give them that voice and thats why he is popular. If he ever became president he would most likely only be running for 4 years because he would basically not do any of the things he's been talking about. A real populist for sure but a global risk he isn't.
- basicplus2 11y ago
  if you are right.. then maybe that's the real reason he is rated as being in the top ten global risks...
- ludicast 11y ago
  Exactly. Though a lifelong liberal* I am really enjoying the Trump show and the conniptions he is causing both parties. And provided he doesn't do his mass-deportation (which I think is an empty threat), there is nothing about him that is so extreme, except for his delivery. "repeal and replace X" - he will replace X with almost the same exact thing "build a wall" - there is nothing so crazy about a sovereign nation having a border "not letting in refugees until we figure out what the hell is going on" - both sides have reasonable opinions in this one, but I guarantee plenty of those under the Merkelreich wish she had been closer to Trump here. "blow the * out of ISIS" - we completely sat on our hands as children were crucified and buried alive. Our half-assed support for the ballsy Kurds was disgusting as they fought bunker-hill style. I understand we don't want to spend more time in the middle-east, but this definitely falls under you-break-it-you-bought-it. "the Iran deal is the worst yada yada" - well any deal that doesn't get back hostages and lets them fire test rockets with "death to israel" written on them isn't the best deal out there. So it's been fun, and I had no idea he was this skilled at political theater. * liberal in terms of pro-choice, legalization, marriage-equality etc., but not a fan of the far-left direction things are moving in a la diblasio & co.

24 points by SimplyUseless 11y ago

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Maybe you should stop demonizing this particular guy? After all, nobody wrote panic reports about GWB, did they?

parenthephobia 11y ago
Because nobody panicked about GWB, we shouldn't panic about Trump? Even if it was true, how would that be a sensible argument?
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  You should not panic, and you should panic even less about herd-propagated non-issues.
hackbinary 11y ago
But GWB was from a 'Good' family of the American aristocracy. (Yes I know the USA is technically a 'classless' society and does not have an upperclass in law (de jure), but it does have an upper class in practice (de facto).)
saint_fiasco 11y ago
Wasn't that a mistake in retrospect?

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

I remember a lot of apocalyptic predictions were made about Ronald Reagan when he first was elected. He was going to start a new world war, he would recklessly use nuclear weapons, there would be massive oppression of human rights, etc. Ironically, however, the Reagan era was a remarkably peaceful time, with tremendous economic growth and very little military action other than the brief intervention in Grenada.

arethuza 11y ago
"He was going to start a new world war" He almost did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 However, to his credit he learned from this mistake and decided to take a less confrontational line with the Soviets - a change that he deserves a lot of credit for. Edit: See "Arsenals of Folly" by Richard Rhodes.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Wikipedia, eh? The deployment of short range nuclear missiles into the European theater was a deliberate strategy to unsettle the Soviets and force them to the negotiating table. And it worked. It also of course sparked youth protests all across western Europe; they were concerned that "warmonger" Reagan was going to use them as the battlefield in his chess game with the Soviets. Pentagon strategists talked of using tactical nukes to destroy Soviet armies. Yes it was scary times, but we won. The Soviets are gone, and the 80s-90s were a period of unparalleled prosperity in the U.S. and much of the world actually.
earlyriser 11y ago
It's rare that predictions are fulfilled. People have more grey than b&w. However he made lots of errors that had future consequences, not right in his era: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/06/03/ronald-reagan-worst-president-ever http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/06/03/ronald-reagan-w...

mvdwoord 11y ago

I'm more afraid of Hillary becoming president actually. That would pretty much guarantee more wars and grand theft/banksterism.

j1z0 11y ago
Hillary guarantee more wars than a man who is openly prejudiced and hostile to both Muslims and Mexicans? As Secretary of State did she not work on building foreign relationships and brokering peace deals? Why would you say her election guarantees war?
- AJ007 11y ago
  She does not have a good track record and is a well known hawk. Many, many people have been killed, injured, and displaced thanks to policies she strongly advocated for in Libya and Syria. As for Trump, no one has any idea what he will do. He is a wild card.
- throw677677676 11y ago
  Hillary was involved in Serbia, Iraq, Libya and now Syria. She is more likely to escalate war with Russia, China, Iran or any other possible target. I dont live in USA, and I do not care about your internal politics, but Hillary would be dissaster for entire world.
- falsestprophet 11y ago
  Is having and enforcing immigration laws prejudiced and hostile to Mexicans? If it is prejudiced and hostile at all, then every country is prejudiced and hostile to almost every other country. That includes Mexico to central American countries.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Modern wars don't arise from prejudice. They usually arise from the ill-placed desire to help or solve problems. You know what people with prejudices do? They keep distance. When a person have a history of using force as a solution ("just apply more") - that's trouble.

ThomPete 11y ago

Trump rhetoric != Trump politics This is something that the media have completely failed to address. Take something like illegal immigrants. You don't find a single politician in the US or in Europe for that matter who would ever say that they are ok with illegal immigrant. There is more or less complete political consensus around this subject yet Trump managed through rhetorics to make it look like there is deep political disagreement, simply by saying he wants to build a wall and make the Mexican government pay for it. Everyone from left to right fell for it but when you look at it Trumps political are actually quite moderate. Fundamentally he is for gay marriage, for legalization of some drugs, he isn't very religious, his taxation politics are fundamentally to lower taxes for small businesses but remove deductions, he is fundamentally in agreement with most of Affordable Healthcare Act (especially the part about preexisting conditions which is one of the most important parts of it) and he is a business man who basically need the common man to do well so that many of his enterprises can do well, hardly someone who wants to go to war. He is also against the trade agreements. Which is hurtigt average americans who don't get to benefit from globalization. The real crime here is that the media haven't called his bluff and instead of giving us proper analysis they gave us the juicy headlines that he is in almost infinite supply of. Because that is what sells. Trump rhetoric is vulgar and over the top but he is talking to a bunch of people who have never been heard and who have never felt like they had a voice. Trump give them that voice and thats why he is popular. If he ever became president he would most likely only be running for 4 years because he would basically not do any of the things he's been talking about. A real populist for sure but a global risk he isn't.

basicplus2 11y ago
if you are right.. then maybe that's the real reason he is rated as being in the top ten global risks...
ludicast 11y ago
Exactly. Though a lifelong liberal* I am really enjoying the Trump show and the conniptions he is causing both parties. And provided he doesn't do his mass-deportation (which I think is an empty threat), there is nothing about him that is so extreme, except for his delivery. "repeal and replace X" - he will replace X with almost the same exact thing "build a wall" - there is nothing so crazy about a sovereign nation having a border "not letting in refugees until we figure out what the hell is going on" - both sides have reasonable opinions in this one, but I guarantee plenty of those under the Merkelreich wish she had been closer to Trump here. "blow the * out of ISIS" - we completely sat on our hands as children were crucified and buried alive. Our half-assed support for the ballsy Kurds was disgusting as they fought bunker-hill style. I understand we don't want to spend more time in the middle-east, but this definitely falls under you-break-it-you-bought-it. "the Iran deal is the worst yada yada" - well any deal that doesn't get back hostages and lets them fire test rockets with "death to israel" written on them isn't the best deal out there. So it's been fun, and I had no idea he was this skilled at political theater. * liberal in terms of pro-choice, legalization, marriage-equality etc., but not a fan of the far-left direction things are moving in a la diblasio & co.