A large part of the economy works on confidence and stability. I think a lot of confidence the democratic capitalist way of life would be lost if Trump were elected, and it would impact markets significantly even if he never manages to implement anything. Just the fact that we would have elected someone that wanted to do the things he said is destabilizing in itself.
Sure, something like than could be triggered. But, if the economy is so delicate that it gets spooked to death by the mere thought of the US reformulating trade and monetary policies, then it’s probably going down the next time it sees it’s own shadow, anyway.
Yes, yes, the EIU took account of all that, that’s why the threat level is not rated higher.
If it was just the election that may apply, but we are talking about someone that with executive orders can do lots of harm indeed.
Remember that his latest point regarding torture was to finally admit that he could not break the law… So he has told us now that he will work to change the law so that we can torture again. And piss also our our allies in the war against ISIS.
The problem is that the issues where he will chance course are going to affect international relations, but trade and international efforts to deal with carbon emissions will be in danger too.
That’ll earn you a warning, Johnny. You know you can’t insult other posters NOR call them troll.
Please refrain in the future.
The USA is not living in a vacuum, history and logic tell us that other countries will react negatively to the misguided trade wars that Trump wants and that does not mean that the USA will continue to get the same deals and products from abroad this is not about being spooked by a downturn, this is for practical purposes more close to sabotage.
Not to mention the private corporations like Apple that will not take what Trump i demanding of them lying down. It is more than just a shadow what we are dealing with here.
You may recall that when two buildings in NYC fell down the US public singlehandedly created a recession and stock market swoon that took 5 years to recover from. That was the major domestic consequence. I needn’t mention the international ones.
The herd is very skittish all the time, not just now. We live atop a very tall tower made of playing cards. We whack at its base only at our great peril.
Sorry, actually I didn’t know that…but it’s on me anyway for not knowing.
Done.
Also I think it’s a bit misleading using terms like “destroy” and “death” of the economy as Hank Beecher is. We’re not talking about skittishness bringing about the apocalypse.
We’re talking about difficult economic conditions for a few years / recession. The world economy will bounce back, it’s just a pain in the ass to have to live through it.
If I may quote George Carlin, “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
Or Albert Einstein: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
And there’s the old adage about underestimating the stupidity of people in large groups.
In other words, MY opinion is that we, as Americans, are certainly capable of doing stupid things (Bush 2 elected and re-elected, Kim Basinger winning an Oscar, Jethro Tull beating Metallica at the Grammys). We should know better, by which I mean that we shouldn’t vote Trump into office. He’s the absolute worst choice that I can think of, and not just this year.
I find it very unlikely that Trump will be elected president. Also, I am very dismayed and disappointed to discover that so many of my fellow Americans support the likes of him.
In other words, I’m not super worried about him becoming president, but I am quite worried about the attitudes of something like 40% of Americans, and how that corrodes both cultural progress and the functioning of governments at all levels.
That also wasn’t meant to sound as snotty as it probably did. The comma should have been a semicolon…what I get for thinking faster than I type.
The difference one little punctuation mark can make…
Spoken like one who sees politics as purely Us vs. Them partisanship. Any loss by You is a win for Me.
It may be hard for a Republican to grasp this, but many thinking Americans would like to see TWO strong parties and an intelligent debate.
Out of curiosity, Starving Artist, would you be proud if you help elect Donald Trump? Or do your comments here just stem from a partisan urge to say “Nanner nanner nannner” ?
I’m reluctant to try to forecast the November election – I’m on record as not believing Trump could make it this far. :eek: One thing we can say, although it’s a sad commentary on American politics: The race won’t depend on whether millions of voters suddenly come to their senses; it will turn on something mundane like whether the White/Hispanic turnout differential is greater than 15% or less than 15%.
So well put. This is why I would consider registering Rep (I’m a really a Dem) and voting for Kasich in my primary (or just voting for him, were my state an open-primary one). If I thought Kasich had a snowball’s chance in hell, that is.
Beautiful. A key insight well-explained. Thank you.
This is also the key to why so many political threads devolve into folks talking past one another. Once my team winning becomes the only goal then it no longer matters what the game is, what the rules are, nor even why we’re here to play this game.
This one deserves my sig.
From my wife’s Facebook feed: “Basically, Trump is what would happen if the comments section became human and ran for President.”
Would be nice, wouldn’t it?
I grew up in an era where one expected the Dems and GOP to essentially take turns correcting each other’s excesses, but moving the ball generally forward all the while.
I’d love to see a GOP that would say, “here’s how free market principles could be used to improve Obamacare,” rather than “Obamacare delenda est.” Similarly, I’d like to see a Democratic Party that doesn’t demand that we undo all the GOP tax cuts of the last however long by bringing back the 90% Eisenhower-era max tax rates on rich people…but we already have that Democratic Party.
So that’s one out of two. The problem for Dems is, how do we cure the other party’s disease?
As best as I can tell, gaining political control, then governing effectively in ways that benefit the vast majority of Americans, is our only lever. The possibility of reducing the GOP to irrelevance as long as it maintains its current madness is the only avenue I can see. Hopefully we can eventually keep the fever confined to the seemingly irreducible 27%.
Honestly a bit meh on the we want two strong parties bit. The GOP’s obituary may be yet again premature, even with Trump as their candidate. The odds for Democratic control of Congress and of State governments are even steeper than the odds for GOP control of the Presidency.
Plus imagine if you will that the GOP suddenly was poof no more. How long you think until the Democratic party would split?
Well, we’re gonna have two parties; the only question is what their attributes would be.
Worst case for the GOP if Trump is nominated: they lose one landslide, on the scale of 2008. But by 2018, it’s all history.
Worst case for the GOP if Trump is denied the nomination: they lose one landslide, maybe even a bit bigger than 2008. And enough Trump supporters say ‘fuck it’ and give up on politics that for a few 2-year cycles, we’re more of a 53-47 nation than a 50-50 one.
Those are worst cases, not what I’d expect. But FWIW, when I compare to 2008, I’m comparing across all levels. An election where the Dems win the White House by 53-46 but fail to regain the House is something considerably smaller than a 2008-style landslide.
Someday, somebody’s going to explain this to me. There’s a ton of R+1 and R+2 (Cook PVI) House seats. In 2008, the Dems won a whole bunch of House seats all the way up to R+7 before the winnings got sparse further up the line; that’s how they got that big-ass House majority they had in 2009.
What makes regaining the House so incredibly out of reach? I accept that it’s an uphill fight, sure, but everybody seems to shrug and go “why even bother thinking about it? It’s all but impossible.” But it’s not. In fact, the Cook Political Report just changed its ratings of 10 House races, all in the direction of becoming more favorable to the Dems. And this is just March.
You know what’s going to happen? The Dems aren’t going to bother putting much effort into recruiting and supporting good House candidates in all those R+1 through R+3 or R+4 districts because, why bother? And then when a landslide at the top of the ticket brings them to only a 223-212 deficit in the House, despite having made little effort to win the House, everybody’s going to bemoan a very costly missed opportunity.
That’s my nightmare, anyway. But I don’t see why it isn’t a somewhat realistic one, both in terms of the Dems having a real winning chance in the House, and, alas, in terms of their quite possibly failing to capitalize on it by sheer inaction.
Republican voters in 2012 had a slightly higher IQ then Democratic ones. :rolleyes::dubious: