Donald Trump winning the US presidency rated at the sixth greatest risk to world stability

Geoff: According to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Donald Trump becoming the next US president would disrupt global economics and cause a threat to international stability and politics.

While they expect Trump to lose the presidential vote to Hilary Clinton, they do state that a Trump victory would have a high impact on the economy, cause a trade war with China and Mexico, as well as further destabilise the Middle East (following Trump's suggestion of invading Syria and taking their oil ).

They do also point out that Trump has been notoriously reticient on his own policies, and although they don't flat out say so, the Donald seems to just pull policies out of thin air to impress the politically naive (a camp in which the majority of his followers lay). The EIU report does predict that even the Republicans in congress would be hard pressed to support most of Trumps more publicity-grabbing suggested policies; meaning he's likely to be a lame duck president even during his first term.

Geoff: Their exact wording is:

--
Introduction
The businessman and political novice, Donald Trump, has built a strong lead in the Republican party primary, and looks the firm favourite to be the party's candidate in the US presidential election in November.

Analysis
Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision - but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a "currency manipulator". He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jiadhi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war - and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.

Conclusion
Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. It is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress - albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.
https://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gr&articleId=2866



--
Analysis of this and layman's interpretations can be found through both the BBC and NBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35828747

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-presidency-global-threat-economist-intelligence-unit-warns-n540416

chronology: One chilling thought is what Donald would allow in Appalachia Coal Fields.

Hillary made waves when she spoke of changes in Coal mining in Appalachia, but Donald would be 'hands off and remove any regulations, if you wonder what that would do to the communities in the Mountains, take a look at the District after decades of strip mining.

Appalachian folks are legendary for their spirit of survival through hard times, community spirit, and tenacity of purpose that would impress Romulus and Remus. But Donald's 'hands off capitalism' would be a new storm for them to weather worse than anything Hilary would create.

SWlNE:

There should be some way to enclose the US so that their foreign policy and political mishaps wouldn't send damaging global rippling effect.

Trump vs Hilary -it is as asking which item you'll want to be gorged in the eye with, a pencil or a letter opener.

Geoff: Well, they'll do their southern border themselves. Canada will probably have to build a wall to prevent immigrants if Trump does get in.

And the election does remind me of the South Park episode - who are you going to vote for: Giant Douche or Shit Sandwich?

sebtheanimal: That's a relief sine Obama became the #1 risk.

sebtheanimal: *since

Geoff: Do you have a reference for that claim? Because I have searched and I can't find anything corroborate that assertion.

sebtheanimal: Events of the last 7+ years are my reference.
Corroborated by the world over.

Geoff: The rest of the world rates Obama as much better than his predecessor.

I am aware of your personal political leaning, but an individual's opinion is really not the same thing.

sebtheanimal: My personal opinion is irrelevant. I liked him. The rest of the world is kind of dumb and backwards. He began twice as many conflicts as Bush. You're witnessing it,

sebtheanimal: Trump has done nothing. While I may not agree with him - he is a result of Obama's failures.

chronology: Mr Bush was an easy target for cheap comments, but it is worth remembering what the world would be like had he not followed in the footsteps of Alexander the Great.

Well let's see Guys, U.S. Air Force planes would have flown another 100.000 hours of peace keeping missions. The Taliban would still be ruling in Afghanistan providing a safe zone for terrorists to plan and organise bombing attacks on America. 500.000 Iraqis would be dead from sanctions, on top of the 500.000 already dead.

If you want to blame Mr Bush for events after the liberation of Iraq then you are being totally unreasonable as the priority was to remove Saddam.

One of the criticisms made of the GOP Government then that does seem reasonable is that they never funded the war with appropriate Taxation, but Mr Bush was no different from Mr Reagan in that respect. Mr Reagan ran up an even bigger bill in the 1980s than Mr Bush did in Iraq, but people praise Mr Reagan.

SWlNE:
Are you aware of the current situation Iraq and Afghanistan caused by that war?
Are you aware of the current situation in Libya?
Are you aware that there are persons right now who have to leave their homeland there and are leaving their homes?
Are you aware of how ISIS gain momentum in the Middle East?
Are you aware of how many fucking Iraqi civilians have died and suffered due to that invasion, and let's call it an invasion because it's not a sugar-coated 'liberation'?
Do you know which country pressed for the sanctions knowing that it will affect the Iraqi population and not their leaders?
Do you know which country pressed for those deadly sanctions?
Do you know which country was close to Saddam and even helped his Ba'ath party out in the coup?

And all you care about is that the war was never funded with appropriate Taxation. Man, I'd think you're trolling right now but I believe that there are persons at your level of delusion. Thinking it's some game.

To answer your statement, yes, it is worth thinking on what the world would be like had he not followed in the footsteps of "Alexander the Great" (I'm thinking that you mean to say Imperialism because he is in no way a comparison the Alexander the Great except by his attempted imperialistic action).

It would've been a much better world than this, that's for sure and many civilians and Middle Eastern natives would've been alive today.

Geoff: Pakistan is an "ally" of the US and is still a safe haven for terrorists.

Saudi Arabia is an "ally" of the Us and is not only a safe haven for terrorists, but a terrorist state on it's own.

The difference between Saudi Arabia and IS is US governmental opinion.

I K R: who are the top 5?

Geoff: None of the other global risks are a single person.
https://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gr&articleId=2866

With the possible exception that "Russia's actions in Ukraine and Syria lead to a new Cold War" could be put squarely at the door of Putin.

They do put Greece exiting the EU as twice as potentially damaging to global markets as the UK's exit. Mainly because of Greece being part of the EuroZone.

I K R: its ok I found it....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35828747

a collapse in oil investment at number 10
Chinese expansionism prompting a clash of arms at number 9
"Brexit"is at number 8
the rise of jihad and terrorism is at number 7
Donald Trump getting elected at number 6
"Grexit" and a euro zone break up is at number 5
EU begins to fracture is at number 4
corporate debt crisis at number 3
Russian interventions in the Ukraine and Syria at number 2
China experiencing a hard landing (dunno what that means) at number 1

Well, it seems like 2,3,4,5,7, and hopefully (imo) number 8 are all definitely happening...or going to...(.I missed out number one since i don't know what a hard landing is) But why has the BBC picked on number 6?....hasn't he promised to tackle some of those other risks? ..Why hasn't Angela Murkel been mentioned by name?

chronology: Geoff, folks will never agree about the Iraq war, but many do agree Mr Bush took the lesser of two evil's route when he liberated the country. With tens of thousands of U.S. Troops stuck on Iraq's border, and Iraq without any of the normal privileges as a country, she could not control her airspace, where her people travelled to, who she traded with, what she did with her international investments, a thousand Iraqis dying each week from sanctions, millions of Iraqis living in artificial poverty created by sanctions.

No Geoff, Mr Bush is a good man who chose the less painful route for Iraq.

Americans today seem to have become hardened by their experience in Iraq, perhaps they would say the same as many here on wire say 'screw Iraq, let it rot' but there was enough good folks in the U.S. to shoulder the heavy and cumbersome burden of Iraq's problems. Good folks indeed.

Geoff: Bush was a patsy, a celebrity put up front and then his advisors all cashed in over Iraq. Look at how much Cheney profitted from the war.

Iraq posed no immediate danger to anyone other than the people of Iraq - a clear violation of international law - it took the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to get approval for the war.

North Korea has nukes (admittedly shitty little ones), they're not being invaded - maybe because they don't have any oil.

The Syrian government used chemical weapons against their own people - no US led troops on the ground or even attacks against the Syrian government.

The invasion of Iraq directly lead to the birth of Daesh. Bush may have had good intentions going into Iraq (other than - hey lets make money for our corporate sponsors), but it was an incredibly dumb move.

Geoff: Rebecca, I am pretty sure that BBC reported it because it happened to be a confluence of two topical stories - the EIU updating their risk list and US presidential campaign. NBC, the Guardian and Times all covered it as well. This is a big story in that it centres around a single person.

Trump may claim that he has a plan to deal with some of those problems, but as the EIU point out - he never outlines what his pans really are - just a load of waffle, jam tomorrow, and vagueness.

And - the BBC also reports quite a lot on the financial situation in China, the chilling of the relationship between Russia and the west, the volatility of the currency exchange market, the situation in the EU especially regarding Greece and the UK, as well as the actions of Jihadi terrorist groups (particularly Daesh and Boko Haram),

I K R: Well i agree with that, he has been very vague on how he plans to tackle these problem but by the same standard how can anyone decide he is a major threat?
It reminds me of when Obama got the Nobel peace prize when he hadn't done anything.
Donald Trump hasn't done or said anything that warrants him to be either threat to world stability or a world saviour.

BAD WOLF_: When you instruct people at your own rally to commit acts of violence against people who may oppose you well... That's not a person I'd want to be the face of my country

I K R: Did he do that? From what i've seen it was the people who were protesting against him doing the violence, not his supporters.

BAD WOLF_: Protestor gets punched in the face



I also remember Trump saying he'd pay the dudes legal fees.... That's president material

I K R: Ok but they had gone to a private rally where people had gone to listen to Trump and then a member of the public punches a guy.....that isn't Trump inciting violence...though he shouldn't be offering to pay his legal fees....Tbh its not on to go disrupting a private rally....People have a right to hear him speak, and isn't it against the law? Why do they keep turning up to protest inside his rallies why don't they hold their own rallies?
We had a similar thing happen in the UK when a member of a political party dared to suggest we should limit migration.....that we should leave the EU...he was called all sorts...racist....far right....by the other parties and the media.....now many are saying that he was right on those points.....He was even attacked while he was out with his family. It just seems like a similar scenario to me.
Donald Trump hasn't said much that would inspire me ....he seems to have one speech that he just continually repeats...I dont see the point in going to his rally if you've already heard him speak..... but in fairness there seems to be mass media bias and hysteria being whipped up....people have been thrown out of all the other candidates rallies also....why focus on Donald Trumps? N why do black lives matter keep appearing......has he said black lives dont matter?