The Economist: Trump Poses the Biggest Danger to the World in 2024

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Hillary suffered from overconfidence and exhaustion due to poor physical conditioning. Trump was clearly more energetic, but his margin was razor thin (<<1% in 3 states)

Translation: "Yes, unfortunately."

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Translation: "Yes, unfortunately."

I don't think so. 

Have you ever seen a football team (or whatever) leading comfortably in a game, and then lose a couple of key players to injury. Extenuating circumstances can quickly turn the tide of a contest. The lesser team can win. I think that's very much what happened in 2016. Extenuating circumstances really added up. The Russian social media campaign, the hack and leak. Comey's October surprise was probably the backbreaker. A comfortable lead became a dead heat and tipped the other way by the smallest of margins. 

But, to be fair, on paper Trump shouldn't have even been remotely viable. A reality TV star with no political experience, no governing experience, a spotty business record and TONS of character baggage? I don't think that's anyone's idea of a superior candidate. It should never have been close enough to tilt under any circumstance. He was certainly overperforming. It was Hillary's race to lose, and, with the help of some extenuating circumstances, she lost it. 

 

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I don't think so. 

Have you ever seen a football team (or whatever) leading comfortably in a game, and then lose a couple of key players to injury. Extenuating circumstances can quickly turn the tide of a contest. The lesser team can win. I think that's very much what happened in 2016. Extenuating circumstances really added up. The Russian social media campaign, the hack and leak. Comey's October surprise was probably the backbreaker. A comfortable lead became a dead heat and tipped the other way by the smallest of margins. 

But, to be fair, on paper Trump shouldn't have even been remotely viable. A reality TV star with no political experience, no governing experience, a spotty business record and TONS of character baggage? I don't think that's anyone's idea of a superior candidate. It should never have been close enough to tilt under any circumstance. He was certainly overperforming. It was Hillary's race to lose, and, with the help of some extenuating circumstances, she lost it. 

 

Oh my GOD - that is truly one of the most pathetic excuse efforts i've seen in ages

Its' not her illegal activites with mail servers etc, it's not bengazi or her hubby raping people and her covering it up, it's not a truly horrible campaign effort to begin with...  she was just too tired to win.

Can't the dems get their candidates a red bull or something?  Or find someone under 80?

[Perspektiv]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

Have you ever seen a football team (or whatever) leading comfortably in a game, and then lose a couple of key players to injury. Extenuating circumstances can quickly turn the tide of a contest. The lesser team can win.

Its about the size of the fight in the dog, not the size of dog in the fight.

Adversity reveals character. 

Covid-19 lockdowns put my relationship under pressure its never been in as badly and as sustained before. Under that level of adversity and destruction to our mental health, we dug deep and became closer. Many other couples, divorced or drifted further apart.

Crunch time. Clinton got cocky, and felt it was in the bag. Didn't even want to consider Trump a threat.

Trump hustled like someone who had 24 hours to live.

A better comparison, is a team with a two touchdown lead, becoming complacent because little time is left to play, being outworked and rattled, allowing a team that had no business winning, to be victorious.

So yes. I do think so. Matter of fact, the world saw it, and knows so.

[impartialobserver]

Unlike most on here.. I read the article in the Economist. I think that they overestimate how impactful Trump would be when it comes to foreign affairs. 

[robosmith]

On 12/5/2023 at 1:28 AM, Perspektiv said:

Its about the size of the fight in the dog, not the size of dog in the fight.

Adversity reveals character. 

Covid-19 lockdowns put my relationship under pressure its never been in as badly and as sustained before. Under that level of adversity and destruction to our mental health, we dug deep and became closer. Many other couples, divorced or drifted further apart.

Crunch time. Clinton got cocky, and felt it was in the bag. Didn't even want to consider Trump a threat.

Trump hustled like someone who had 24 hours to live.

A better comparison, is a team with a two touchdown lead, becoming complacent because little time is left to play, being outworked and rattled, allowing a team that had no business winning, to be victorious.

So yes. I do think so. Matter of fact, the world saw it, and knows so.

"The world" did NOT SEE the extent of the ILLEGAL help Trump got from Russia. For one MAJOR REASON, Trump GUTTED the FEC after taking office, which was solely responsible for prosecuting election law violations.

Apparently the FF (or whoever created the FEC) never anticipated a POTUS who was as corrupt as Trump.

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"The world" did NOT SEE the extent of the ILLEGAL help Trump got from Russia.

Which was none.  There is no evidence of illegal help from russia.  3 years and dozens of FBI agents and they still couldn't find any.

So the world didn't see something that didn't exist.

[Perspektiv]

58 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"The world" did NOT SEE the extent of the ILLEGAL help Trump got from Russia.

Unless Russia provided  over 40% of the total votes, you're essentially whining about a couple bad referee calls for losing the game, when you had 4 quarters to work with. O_o

"It killed the momentum!"

She was at a stand still, and shook. The extra time was formality.

Hillary did nothing to dominate Trump, and often shot herself in the foot. The fact it was close, is  testament to how disliked that she was to many, and how so many more were on the fence with her. She's a woman. She should have capitalized on it. Instead she played the V card so hard, Bill Clinton was likely blushing.

She based on experience alone, should have mauled him by a landslide.

Blaming everyone but herself, shows a lack of self awareness that would have made her a horrible leader.

He made mince meat of her in the debates with one line: "because she'd be in jail".

The best line I have heard from her, was "Trumped up economics". He understands how to grab eyeballs and command your attention. She failed to adapt to her fiercest rival.

He had it in the bag at "crooked Hillary".

She was waving to the crowd hundreds of meters from the finish line, and feels the windy weather was to blame for her losing the marathon.

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

never anticipated a POTUS who was as corrupt as Trump.

Isn't that in itself short-sighted?

You should have checks and balances in every nook and cranny.

Can't blame the thief if you leave your car windows down.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Unless Russia provided  over 40% of the total votes, you're essentially whining about a couple bad referee calls for losing the game, when you had 4 quarters to work with. O_o

Hardly. All they had to do was provide the tiny margin of <<1% in 3 states that were CRUCIAL to Trump's "win."

Which is why Manafort was sharing the private polling data with Russian agent Kilimnik; so they could better target their disinformation campaign AID.

Can't believe what a difficult time you're having understanding that math.

 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

"It killed the momentum!"

She was at a stand still, and shook. The extra time was formality.

Hillary did nothing to dominate Trump, and often shot herself in the foot. The fact it was close, is  testament to how disliked that she was to many, and how so many more were on the fence with her. She's a woman. She should have capitalized on it. Instead she played the V card so hard, Bill Clinton was likely blushing.

She based on experience alone, should have mauled him by a landslide.

Blaming everyone but herself, shows a lack of self awareness that would have made her a horrible leader.

He made mince meat of her in the debates with one line: "because she'd be in jail".

The best line I have heard from her, was "Trumped up economics". He understands how to grab eyeballs and command your attention. She failed to adapt to her fiercest rival.

He had it in the bag at "crooked Hillary".

She was waving to the crowd hundreds of meters from the finish line, and feels the windy weather was to blame for her losing the marathon.

Isn't that in itself short-sighted?

You should have checks and balances in every nook and cranny.

Can't blame the thief if you leave your car windows down.

Of course the thief will be tried and convicted for stealing a car even if the windows were down.

Can't imagine why you believe he won't. Is Canadian law that loose?

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Hardly. All they had to do was provide the tiny margin of <<1% in 3 states that were CRUCIAL to Trump's "win."

But the fbi investigations found that they didn't.

You could say the same of voter fraud in the next election - a small amount in a few key places put biden over the top!!! Honest!!!!

The idea that polling data would have helped with that overmuch is just stupid.  Manafort send the polling data to brag that they were already winning. Which they were.

You just can't even see your own hypocrisy. You're so blinded by tribe and hatred that you can't think clearly in the slighest.

Trump did nothing illegal in the slightest.  And polling data isn't "Secret", anyone can have a poll done. There's tonnes of accurate and free ones as well.

America is doomed.  - people like you will absolutely sink it

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

All they had to do was provide the tiny margin of <<1% in 3 states that were CRUCIAL to Trump's "win."

If that's the margin that Hillary lost by, then she didn't do good enough a job during her campaign, to set herself apart from Trump. I mean, the stories are endless about voters calling her anything but a trustworthy candidate that seems warm and caring for a significant portion of on the fence voters. She did little to win them over, with incredibly stiff showings and boasting about her win like it was already done, which came across as insanely arrogant.

Blaming Russia, is the easy cop out. A smart candidate would wonder what they did wrong. There is plenty of material, which is why she deserved the loss.

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Can't believe what a difficult time you're having understanding that math.

Its not the math. Its the fact that even if Russia did collude--the fact that the razor thin loss to me points to Clinton's incompetence vs Russia's interference.

Like I said. You're complaining about a penalty, or a fan throwing debris on the field, for a loss when you had control of an entire campaign. Mind boggling.

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Of course the thief will be tried and convicted for stealing a car even if the windows were down.

You make it harder to get caught, if they can just grab and go. Catches a lot more attention, when someone has to force entry into a vehicle.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

people like you will absolutely sink it

They ironically also invigorate those who would vote for Trump, to do just that.

Its people like Trudeau, that made me fiercely conservative. I've been a liberal my entire life.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

They ironically also invigorate those who would vote for Trump, to do just that.

Its people like Trudeau, that made me fiercely conservative. I've been a liberal my entire life.

True.  Tribalism breeds tribalism and stupidity drives the intelligent to the other team.

 

[robosmith]

The Economist’s ‘World Ahead’ Guide Declares Donald Trump The Biggest Global Threat In 2024

Quote

 

The biggest danger the world faces in 2024 is if former President Donald Trump is elected to a second term, according to The Economist’s guide to The World Ahead.

In the 38 years since the predictive guide was first published, “no single person has ever eclipsed our analysis as much as Donald Trump eclipses 2024,” the article begins. It goes on to ponder what a Trump victory would mean for the world and claims that parliaments and boardrooms the world over are filled with “despair” at what may come:

A second Trump term would be a watershed in a way the first was not. Victory would confirm his most destructive instincts about power. His plans would encounter less resistance. And because America will have voted him in while knowing the worst, its moral authority would decline. The election will be decided by tens of thousands of voters in just a handful of states. In 2024 the fate of the world will depend on their ballots.

Trump would move his MAGA Republican allies into “the most important positions” in government, the article predicts, and Trump would be “unbound in his pursuit of retribution, economic protectionism and theatrically extravagant deals.”

The article posits that a Trump win would signal to China that American democracy is “dysfunctional,” and could give the communist nation the incentive to invade its island neighbor, Taiwan. In addition, the article predicts that Trump’s desire to quickly end the war in Ukraine would give Vladimir Putin the impetus to take over other neighboring countries like Moldova and the Baltic states.

This year’s article resigns itself to the possibility that no one will end up “dispatching” Trump. 

 

 

Edited January 5 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

The Economist’s ‘World Ahead’ Guide Declares Donald Trump The Biggest Global Threat In 2024

 

It's the biggest danger for the Democrats that's for sure.  4 years of unrelenting payback   And then probably another 8 after that if the next republican wins again  

Of course the dems think they ARE the world so the article makes some sense.... 

[eyeball]

On 11/22/2023 at 3:53 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I am still thinking that the fear of Trump is overblown and that a new MAGA government would be stymied in a lot of what they want to do.

Firstly, they're incompetent.  They couldn't change the ACA in four years, how are they going to dispose of democracy?

By poisoning people's faith in it.

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

By poisoning people's faith in it.

 Well that IS possible.  They could do a lot of things or get allies to do a lot of things to crash people's faith in their democracy.

They could create a fake information dossier and use it to sick the fbi on their political opponents.  Or weaponize the courts to go after their opponents with fake or frivolous charges in an effort to constantly harass them.  Even possibly go so far as to try to deny their opponents from being allowed on election ballots, or.....  wait, hang on a minute..... .
 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

By poisoning people's faith in it.

Yes, but that's a long game. Have they reached a tipping point where people are actually willing to overthrow a system of democracy?

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, but that's a long game. Have they reached a tipping point where people are actually willing to overthrow a system of democracy?

More and more of the MAGA CULT are willing to sacrifice democracy to get Trump. 🤮

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, but that's a long game. Have they reached a tipping point where people are actually willing to overthrow a system of democracy?

How long has this game already been going on though? This crisis with democracy like so many others is also quite global in nature.  Don't forget we're talking about a country that overthrew a foreign democracy some 70 years ago (Iran).  Given the creeping normality of authoritarian autocracy around the world ever since some might conclude that tipping point is already behind us.  Why should anyone be surprised we're seeing this phenomenon happen closer to home?  It's like rust, it never sleeps.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

More and more of the MAGA CULT are willing to sacrifice democracy to get Trump. 🤮

Why wouldn't they?  The dems have been doing it non stop and only a fool follows the rules when his opponent refuses to.

That's the danger in what the dems have been doing.

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How long has this game already been going on though? This crisis with democracy like so many others is also quite global in nature.  Don't forget we're talking about a country that overthrew a foreign democracy some 70 years ago (Iran).  Given the creeping normality of authoritarian autocracy around the world ever since some might conclude that tipping point is already behind us.  Why should anyone be surprised we're seeing this phenomenon happen closer to home?  It's like rust, it never sleeps.

Well.... that's a good question.  But there are limits to these things, certainly.  If you look back you can see how things changed and maybe even why.  One of the triggers seems to be .... change.  That claim alone makes it confusingly difficult to identify how close we are to a boiling point, because we are constantly seeing ourselves at an 'unprecedented' moment in history right ?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

One of the triggers seems to be .... change. That claim alone makes it confusingly difficult to identify how close we are to a boiling point, because we are constantly seeing ourselves at an 'unprecedented' moment in history right ?

True enough. That doesn't alter the fact there are precedents where things boil over and even to the point where the pot boils dry.  You can jump out I suppose but what's under the pot is probably the same thing you find under the proverbial frying pan.

[WestCanMan]

The only danger to American "democracy" is that if Trump gets re-elected, Joe's deplorable administration will be surrounded two terms of strong, highly successful Republican leadership.

The difference will be so glaring that the dems will probably never receive another vote. 

 

[robosmith]

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The only danger to American "democracy" is that if Trump gets re-elected, Joe's deplorable administration will be surrounded two terms of strong, highly successful Republican leadership.

The difference will be so glaring that the dems will probably never receive another vote. 

 

Do you know why Trump asked whether we're better off than 5 years ago?

A: it's because FOUR years ago his economy was a DISASTER and that gave us 1 MILLION+ excess deaths in 2020.

Also HIS LOSS.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The only danger to American "democracy" is that if Trump gets re-elected, Joe's deplorable administration will be surrounded two terms of strong, highly successful Republican leadership.

The difference will be so glaring that the dems will probably never receive another vote. 

 

I'm actually trying to remember if there was ever a case of there being single term presidents back to back like that, i'm not sure there has been.  And with trump being 'single term' this time but also LAST term I wonder if it will tend to throw off the us's history of  alternating parties for 2 terms each time. Usually it's dems for 2, Reps for 2, and so on - but the "second" term this time will have to be someone else other than trump even if he wins, so that'll be interesting.