A Trump Presidency Is Rated Among The Top 10 Global Risks [Pics+]

Submitted by: Draculya 1 year ago in News & Politics
adolf-trump-large  

Too extreme or a correct assessment?

The Economist Intelligence Unit thinks that if Donald Trump beat the odds and became the leader of the free world, his presidency would rank up there as being one of the Top 10 risks facing the world.

The Economist Intelligence Unit uses a scale of 1 to 25, with  Trump at a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy."

EIU-trump-disaster

What do you think, I-A-B? What's the worst-case scenario if Trump actually does get nominated POTUS?

There are 35 comments:
Male 2,669
Why is anyone surprised by this? Trump is obviously a disaster waiting to happen. Sure, he's the inspiration for many a clod-stupid Trump fan's wet dream because he's a racist prick, but most people outside the US don't want a maniac in the Oval Office.
0
Reply
Male 434
Why do people talk about a wall as though it's something evil? We're overrun with tens of millions of illegal aliens, putting a strain on education, law enforcement, healthcare, and employment. If you're British, you have your wall (the sea). Our borders should be secure, the present situation is unsustainable.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
That wall works both ways. Listen to what @buttersrules has to say and think about if you really want to live in a country where the government uses fear as a means of control.
0
Reply
Male 1,049
There has to be a limit, for the sake of humanity, and for what myself and others have done. Look at the situation in Australia, at the moment. All my life, I believed that we should have our borders closed, Australia for Australians. Illeagals should be banished, say no to the boats, All that jazz. However, the policies enacted by my government over the last few years have been more than a little disturbing, morally. In fact, they've been downright imorral and inhumane. The (moral) cost is too high. I don't want my country flooded with refugees, but sometimes, the alternative is the greater of the evils. It makes me ashamed to be an Australian. Very ashamed. And, BTW, I'm an ex serviceman. I have 2 brother-in laws that are former servicemen, and one brother in law that is still active service...and my father died in service to this country. But the policy of off shore detention, indefinate detention, without trial, in inhumane and tragic circumstance, that this country has, frankly makes a mockery of our service, and makes me lose more than a little bit of sleep at night. Ileagl immigration, irrespcective of what country you're in, is an issue. But so many people lose sight of the fact that these are people, usually who have had a much worse time of things than you ever did. How about some compassion, people. Just saying.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
People talking about "anti-Trump" articles, hell just take uneditted footage of Trump speaking and with no commentary and that's pretty much anti-Trump right there. What would anyone include in a pro-Trump article?
0
Reply
Female 8,058
Hm- worth pointing out that they also rate the UK leaving the EU as a risk. albeit not huge. it's starting to get down to it. Cameron has said the referendum will be his cue to go, Duncan Smith has resigned to have space to snuggle up to Boris. the gloves are off but very few of the current cabinet are gentlemen. Trump- sure, he's a risk. Even if he can't do what he claims- and I've been told he could manage it - he could cause a war with two phone calls. If he starts deporting people en masse, or building a damn wall- well, I can't see the rest of the world has any option other than to sanction you.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
IDS is a cold-heated bastard and IMO has resigned for several reasons, none of which do him credit; he jumped before was pushed. He was about to be at least demoted and likely out of the cabinet. As you say, cosy up to Boris because IDS and Osborne can't stand each other (they are both right about that). He knows how much most people loathe him for pushing through savage cuts and he is setting up a narrative of "Osborne made me do these things, I fought against it but now my conscience can take no more (which will fool nobody). And, as you say, go full-on Brexit. Now if only those treacherous, sulky, selfish bastards on his own side will get behind Corbyn this could be a big chance for Labour.
0
Reply
Female 8,058
To be fair it is a disgrace- Corbyn has a clear mandate from the CLP- why the hell the PLP can't stop behaving like children and get behind him is beyond me. i think it has been proved that Blairite policies have lost their shine- Labour should re-instate article 4 and get on with it.
0
Reply
Male 280
Amazed how some people think Trump needs defending, You know the peace loving, sober thinking, always ready to compromise, Donald Trump, always vilified in his lifelong career of working tirelessly for the good of America. The radical left media keeps its unprovoked un deserves vile attacks.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
Wait, I'm confused. When did Trump's businesses work for the good of America? Was it the countless times his ventures collapsed and employees were laid off while he walked away with the cash from the sale, mostly from foreign investors. Or how about the times when he traded using Chinese workers for his manufacturing instead of an American counterpart? Donald Trump only cares about Donald Trump, not America.
0
Reply
Male 2,637
I think it's kinda funny. "Anti-Obama" fans are butthurt already, while their demagogue runs a campaign like the Jerry Springer show with the KKK appearing alongside Kanye West. Good luck, America!
0
Reply
Male 4,891
This election isn't about liking trump or liking hillary. Both sides have chosen extreme extreme extreme candidates. Trump support is a reaction to hating hillary. Hillary support is a reaction to hating trump. They don't even try to be "good" options anymore. They just try to be opposite of the other option.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Hillary was running for the past 4 years. He "support" is the bought & paid for DNC Officials. She's 100% Establishment. Her positions have nothing to do with Trump running... yet! >>>But Trump is partly a success because of Hillary and the rest of the flagrantly "establishment" candidates from both parties. I hope the anti-Hillary crowd (and there's a LOT of them! Terrified what will happen to them because they're on one of Hillary's MANY shit-lists) backs Trump! Or even better: Cruz! :-)
0
Reply
Male 7,943
The mega rich have been buying off Politicians now a Mega wealthy Billionaire is running for the most powerful office in the world. This is exactly what they'd rather have, one of their own running the country directly. Why bribe when you can simply convince the stupid to vote for you?
0
Reply
Male 4,891
I never said her positions have anything to do without trump. And trump is also 100% establishment. He's part of the plan. The next logical step. Politicians have been dividing us with the 2 party system. Divide and distract. Trump is the next step. Politicians can only be so divisive and still keep up the "politician" image...so the next step is to get a guy who's not a politician. It's the next step after someone like Hillary. She's as bad as a politician can get, so you need someone who's not a politician to go farther.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
This +10000. I believe there is a Rumsfeld quote from the '80s that says exactly this. This whole divide is completely by design, they want us fighting each other so we aren't paying attention to the shitty things that are actually happening. That is why I don't support any party purely based on a name, I try to pay attention to what a person has to say and what they have done/voted for. If you say you don't want big government in our lives and turn around and vote for anti-gay or anti-abortion laws, then you are a fraud. If you say you are against our involvement in foreign wars but vote for supplying arms to "freedom fighters", you are a fraud. It's all a shame at this point and we all have bought into it, these violent protests are exactly what they want, and they are playing smile-ly glad-hands behind the scenes sniffing each other butts while we the people eat their shit and love it.
0
Reply
Male 1,416
so leftist idiots are just going to bombard us with anti trump stuff for the next 8 months, and they somehow hope this is going to keep rational people from voting for him? The LAST thing I am going to listen to are some moonbat leftists. I am going to see what the candidates ACTUALLY say they are going to do to change the way the country is going downhill, and so far Hillary is saying everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along! lol
0
Reply
Male 1,253
Rational Trump voters? PMSL! There's a classic oxymoron right there. PMSL!
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Yup spanz! 8 solid months of "Trump eats babies!" stories. His past dredged with a microscope, like Romney's dog the most trivial event will be blown to kingdom come! >>>At the same time? The MSM will ACTIVELY HELP Hillary at every possible turn. NO tough questions! NO looking at her past! Just sugarplums and fairy-cakes and everything good! Disgusting, eh? IDK how the Dems can stomach it, doesn't it just stink so bad even their noses get sore? It will be "she's a girl! vote for her!" 24/7...
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Voting for Hillary because she is a female is like eating a turd because it looks like a tootsie-roll.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
In a quick search? Every article I saw at that Website about Hillary was highly pro-Clinton. Just sayin there may be some 'left slant' to this list. I wonder if a Hillary Presidency is also on it? Lolz! :-) So too bad the list isn't actually there, eh? Some of the reasoning behind the choices would have been interesting...
0
Reply
2,845
not the best choice but better then clinton
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Against the odds he wins? Well, at the very start he was indeed a "long shot" at best, but right now he's leading the GOP race and polls better than both Hillary OR Sanders nationally... lolz! It's far from a 'done deal' but he's in front at the moment. >>>People said the same crap about Reagan, Bush-I & Bush-II and Lo! The world is still standing! While Carter, Clinton and Obama were brought in like The Savior riding a donkey into Jerusalem on a Sunday? Everything they touched turned to shit. Well, Clinton did some good, but he also touched things he shouldn't have, eh? :-O All 3 "peaceful democrats" invaded other nations, as did the "warmongering GOP". The only difference was the MSM spinning and spinning...
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Why is we are getting anti-Trump stuff like this en masse; however, we did not see an article about Hillary inciting violence at the Chicago trump rally?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Hi Elkingo! There's been some "pro Trump" stuff? But every time an anti-Hillary post gets put up the IAB Liberals LOSE THEIR MINDS like the freaking Joker on PCP... >>>They excuse that riot because 1. It wasn't a BIG riot! 2. Trump deserves it! 3. Anything to stop the GOP is legitimate, even riots, bombs & murder. And of course (my favorite) 4. They were fighting FOR free speech by stopping right-wingers from speaking! :-)
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Of the past 500 posts (back to 02FEB2016): Anti-Trump: 22 Neutral Trump: 4 Pro-Trump: 0 Anti-Hillary: 4 Neutral Hillary: 2 Pro-Hillary: 0 Anti-Sanders: 0 Neutral Sanders: 3 Pro-Sanders: 4 Anti-Republican: 7 Neutral: 3 Pro: 0 Anti-Democrat: 2 Neutral: 0 Pro: 4 ANOVA Statistics on significant differences in amount of Anti Posts F(4,14) = 37.26, p<0.001. That statistic means there is a 1/1000 percent chance that there is not a significant difference in the statistics. Post Hoc T-tests reveal that the significant differences (obviously) are that there is a significant amount of more anti-Trump posts in the past 500 posts than any other political candidate or either party. There was also significantly more anti-republican posts than anti-democrat or anti-Sanders posts. Finally, there were significantly more anti-Hillary posts than anti-democrat or anti-Sanders posts. There were no other significant differences.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
I thought there was a Pro-Trump or two...and also a Pro-Hillary or two... but they may well have been neutral! Lolz! Not looking for them and arguing when your point is VALID eh? It won't change it, if at all. I knew there were a bunch of anti-Trump posts, but 22! And the IAB liberals whipped up a frenzy over 4 anti-Hillary ones? At least 1-2 were not even mine!! Jumping Judas Priest, their ignorance never ceases to amaze me... And 26 - 6 Trump/Hillary posts, and I get yelled at for putting up "too many" Hillary ones? Wow...
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Ah! That's quite reasonable Elkingo. Nice work!
0
Reply
Male 5,620
There were a couple I counted as neutral, that one could argue is positive, such as voting results (E.G. Trump wins 3 states ect). However, I decided these were neutral for two reasons: 1. They are factual results. 2. There was a fair and even balance between both party's results.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
That also means that 4.4% of the past 500 posts have been anti-Trump. Meanwhile, less than 1% (.8% actual number) were anti-Hillary. 0% were anti-Sanders. Less than 1% were anti-democrat (.4%) and 1.4% were anti-republican. There is about a 6 or 7 out of 100 chance of seeing something anti-Trump or anti-Republican here at IAB, while only 1 or 2 posts will be anti-democrat or anti-Hillary.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Monosandalos Yes, it is a small sample... (N = 55); however, it was not a correlational statistic I ran. I ran an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), with post hoc tests. Those aren't correlational statistics, they are causational statistics.
0
Reply
Male 290
That's all very good, and well done for taking the point to statistically back up your view. There is no argument with your findings, although I would be more convinced if you included politically themed posts only as your sub sample is too small. I would also be inclined to include anti, neutral, and pro Obama posts. That being said, there is no evidence here that shows correlation = causation.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
Why do you say the IAB Liberals defend Hillary? She's not Liberal. Do we really have to go over this again?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
She is a Democrat, she's running to LEAD that party. I don't care what "her politics" are claimed to be, she's the worst possible candidate in US history... and she's about to be chosen to be the LEADER of the Democrat party... let that sink in for a moment... what does that say about the state of the Democrats overall? Just how "liberal" are they if they choose an overt fascist like Hillary to be their representative? hum?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Because, the numbers simply do not lie. See the above statistics I calculated. There is more "defense" of Hillary in the simply facts that there is significantly less negative posts about her.
0
Reply