Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

People, the media, other politicians keep talking of Donald Trump as a trainwreck. An ever cascading litany of outrageous statements, policy proposals, firebrand speeches.

But perhaps its really a train ride with The Trump firmly sitting up front as the Republican preferred candidate despite or because of the "litany of outrageous statements, policy proposals, firebrand speeches."

So where could this train ride take the US and us (the rest of the world) ?

Some background to his body of work and the current response from other politicians

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-anti-muslim-ban-world-reacts
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...p-muslim-ban-backlash-jeb-bush-chris-christie
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/08/republicans-donald-trump-muslims-election-2016

There is also one excellent psychological observation of how well Donald Trump works his audience.

How does Trump do it? Understanding the psychology of a demagogue's rally

His popularity continues to befuddle many. But attend one of his rallies and it begins to make sense: make them laugh, then draw them into your world where danger lurks around every corner and you’re the only one smart enough to stop it


Wednesday 9 December 2015 03.14 AEDT

The thing that is hard to appreciate about Donald Trump before you personally enter a room with him – in this case, the hangar deck of a wartime aircraft carrier – is that his first weapon is humor. Long before he fires up his loyal supporters, before he hits them with outrageous comments that send shockwaves around the world, he makes them laugh.

He looks like the man he is: a real estate developer with dodgy hair. But don’t underestimate the guy – he has the intuition and timing of a standup comedian.

Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-rally-psychology-humor-fear

All I can say is the USA has voters stupid enough to vote for gwb, of course they're stupid enough to vote for trump!

Interesting perspective and with some merit (although I would suggest that it only applies to some on the left, not all).

The left is to blame for the creation of Donald Trump

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/20...mp/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

His popularity comes from two sources:

- Certainty. Most people love certainty. The more fear in the society, the more certainty they seek in a leader. He's the sort of guy that will actually deliver what you ordered, and on time.
- Congruence. Unlike any other politician, he actually says what he is thinking. Whereas most pollies go to great lengths to hide their real thoughts, he is actually honest.

Both these are brilliant qualities, however, he is extreme in his views and there's a lot of distrust and hatred in the way he speaks. That can't lead anywhere good. So I hope he doesn't get in.

bellenuit said:

Interesting perspective and with some merit (although I would suggest that it only applies to some on the left, not all).

The left is to blame for the creation of Donald Trump

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/20...mp/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Click to expand...

As long as the right doesn't have to take any of the blame. LOL
The Specatator makes me laugh.

Well he's not going to appeal to black voters, liberals or women so that's a lot of votes gone.

The only people who really like him are the Tea Party types and I can't believe that they are a majority of the electorate.

bellenuit said:

Interesting perspective and with some merit (although I would suggest that it only applies to some on the left, not all).

The left is to blame for the creation of Donald Trump

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/20...mp/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Click to expand...

Yea... I laugh out loud with Knobby too.

A bit rich to criticise people for stoking anti-Semitic racism, and in literally the same line criticise "the left" for not just come out and say Islam is the problem. It's wrong to be racist against Jewish people... it's just common decency and honesty to be racist against Muslims.

It can't be just me a few other commies who think that when mass shooting happen, and it all involve guns... maybe gun is one of the common denominators; that and easy access to guns.

Or when terrorists blow people up, if it's our people they kill then obviously it's their crazy religion that's to blame. Nothing to do with us and our allies waging wars on them, their country or their people.

Must be something wrong with Islam and Arabs for not liking foreign powers having boots on their land kicking azz and taking names.


We all want peaceful resolution to these wars and terrorism, we better come up with more realistic solutions. One that preferably doesn't include building concentration camps and intern a whole people because they look and sound like a duck.

SirRumpole said:

Well he's not going to appeal to black voters, liberals or women so that's a lot of votes gone.

The only people who really like him are the Tea Party types and I can't believe that they are a majority of the electorate.

Click to expand...

True. I'm surprised he's still around.

Maybe the media just want the guy around to keep up the ratings. That and hush aside real debates on real issues. issues like where are the jobs, where's my lunch, where's by bridge that doesn't fall apart?

Or when terrorists blow people up, if it's our people they kill then obviously it's their crazy religion that's to blame. Nothing to do with us and our allies waging wars on them, their country or their people.

Click to expand...

Only the bad bits of it. The rest is collateral damage.

OK, so maybe we could get of of Iraq/Syria and let ISIL take over.

Would the general population be better served by ISIL than by some shambling form of democracy that we would probably set up, with a Constitution, courts, free press and democratic elections ?

Honesty luutzu, which would you prefer ?

SirRumpole said:

Only the bad bits of it. The rest is collateral damage.

OK, so maybe we could get of of Iraq/Syria and let ISIL take over.

Would the general population be better served by ISIL than by some shambling form of democracy that we would probably set up, with a Constitution, courts, free press and democratic elections ?

Honesty luutzu, which would you prefer ?

Click to expand...

I'd prefer we leave other countries alone. It's not our fight. We just went along with uncle sam.. and Uncle Sam and Mother Britain kinda gave birth to ISIS didn't they?

US first Governor to Iraq - Bremer - created 2 million Iraqi enemies the second day he and the US took over. Did it by declaring all Baath party members to be criminals. So all the generals, the military officers, the soldiers, the public servants running utilities etc... they're all out of a job.

If you got guns, know how to use it, and now can't use it to put food on the table to feed your family... what would you do? You start a movement to bring back Allah and glory to the Iraqi people that's what you do.



From what I know, there's no democracy or courts or free press in Iraq. We, the West, didn't go in there to build up their country and bring peace and glory to their people. We went in, as all "great" powers went in to any country, and take their stuff. We set up courts and laws and constitutions and voting machines.... it's all for show. The Iraqi people probably know that all too well.

There's these Green Zones, there's the security perimeters around Iraqi oil and gas resources... and outside of those areas they can go at each other for all we care. That's what's happening there.

In Afghanistan, some interviewer I heard a few days ago said some 60% of Afghan children are malnourished due to our liberating them from the Taliban. The entire country is broken, and the drug lords, the warlords are popping up all over the place. Some of them work with ISIS too.

----

We, the West, have the most powerful military in the world. Australia is surrounded by sea, the US got a couple on either side. Yet we're told that if we don't fight them there they'll get us here.

So we bomb them first. Then when a few of their "brothers", for some personal reasons or a combination of political and personal reasons goes nuts and kill our innocent people... our politician uses that, link their war to our tragedy and go kill more people.

And we let them.

luutzu said:

Y

It can't be just me a few other commies who think that when mass shooting happen, and it all involve guns... maybe gun is one of the common denominators; that and easy access to guns.

.

Click to expand...

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. So it's Newton's fault he invented his three laws without any regard to others.

Tisme said:

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. So it's Newton's fault he invented his three laws without any regard to others.

Click to expand...

Still can't blame Newton though. One of his law did state that an object remains stationary until another force is acted upon it. Maybe the finger that pull the trigger that click the hammer that fire the powder that etc...?

Maybe they ought to take Chris Rock's solution seriously and sell all the guns they want, just charge a high price for each bullet?

I have the disturbing thought that Donald Trump is only one or two American terrorist outrages away from the White House.

How ? It seems that as any terrorist incident occurs the knee jerk right wing response is to attack anyone who is Muslim. Trump personifies this approach. I fear that more terrorist attacks could further drive America to see the aggression and certainty of Donald Trump as acceptable.

So If I was ISIS and I wanted to spark a full fledged war which created hatred against all Muslims and forced them to respond then goading America and effectively pushing Trump into the White House would be a canny move...

But back to my opening question.

If Trump did become President what do people think the consequences could be in America and around the world ?

Gringotts Bank said:

there's a lot of distrust and hatred in the way he speaks.

Click to expand...

Like me on some days. Although my xenophobia is fairly specific. Given that tendency, I wouldn't put myself up for nomination. artyman:

basilio said:

If Trump did become President what do people think the consequences could be in America and around the world ?

Click to expand...

Potential rise of black power movement, much more militarisation of police forces and probably more black shootings leading potentially to a civil war, probable decline in living standards of the poor and middle class as companies use Trump's support to ratchet down wages and conditions coupled with tax cuts for the rich and cuts in public services leading to a loss of consumer confidence and possibly a recession, possible military confrontation with Russia and China and a general feeling of discomfort by most US residents who are not comfortably well off.

But I doubt it will happen, I think Hilary will win.

basilio said:

I have the disturbing thought that Donald Trump is only one or two American terrorist outrages away from the White House.

How ? It seems that as any terrorist incident occurs the knee jerk right wing response is to attack anyone who is Muslim. Trump personifies this approach. I fear that more terrorist attacks could further drive America to see the aggression and certainty of Donald Trump as acceptable.

So If I was ISIS and I wanted to spark a full fledged war which created hatred against all Muslims and forced them to respond then goading America and effectively pushing Trump into the White House would be a canny move...

But back to my opening question.

If Trump did become President what do people think the consequences could be in America and around the world ?

Click to expand...

That is disturbing, and them terrorists are probably thinking and planning something like it too.

But while I'm guessing that a president has the power to change the world, all president will ultimately serve the elite and large corporations anyway.

The only difference between the elite powers in our democratic West and those third world dictators and autocrats is information are open and the law and court does protect peaceful activism. So if the people organise a movement, they can scare the heck out of these concentrated centre of power and maybe some good will come of it.

Otherwise, presidential advisors, think tanks and all the intellectuals will make very convincing case to law makers; and behind the "intellectual" reasoning and propaganda lies big wads of cash waiting for good big and little politicians and bureaucrats who say and do the right thing.

As Chris Hedges points out, Nixon was the last Liberal US president. He passed the clean air act, set up the environmental protection agency; there were a bunch of social programme and social security measures passed in the 50s and 60s. Those didn't happen because some great and noble president thought it's a nice thing to do - it's done because people demanded it.

So take Bill Clinton... Wall St didn't like him. He want them and their money to like him. So he got a couple of their CEOs to be Treasury Secretary, got their favourite oracle to be in the Feds, passed a bunch of laws that recommend deregulation of derivatives and other new financial innovations... and to top it off, take on to the federal level the 3 strike rules and double or triple rates of imprisonment for minor drug offences. Also help too that Clinton also permit the privatisation of prisons.

Same with Obama. Soon after the GFC and he saw how Wall St CEO got bailed out but didn't use the cash to lend to small busineses but lend it back to the gov't at a nice profit, then giving themselves multimillion dollar bonuses... He was saying how Wall St is nasty, those greedy CEO should be looked into... then he received the message from those CEO and within a day or two say they aren't so bad.


Maybe Trump would be good in that he won't listen to anyone but his own ego. Problem is his ego is probably worst than anything Wall St or the military industrial complex could come up with.

My darker fears are that ISIS could strategically decided to create further terrorist acts to goad americans into supporting Trump at an election.

Trump gets in and almost immediately establishes a State Of Emergency as a response to the threat of Islam.(not even terrorism..) The response from the Muslim community is "not good" .

Internationally the European community lurches to the right as further terrorism begins in response to Americas action.

Unfortunately the world economy crashes as terrorist activity paralyses economies. It really wouldn't take much to cause modern states to slow down if there was repeated random terrorist activities. And by now the Muslim communities are under so much suspicion it creates its own consequences.

ISIS wins. We have a polarised world community and world wide asymmetrical warfare.

______________________________________________________________________

If that is a plausible scenario if Donald Trump is allowed to continue with his policies what should be the response of other current political leaders ? (Republician, Democrat and others ?)

How reasonable is it to openly discuss these possibilities ?

Would/should a government declare a State of Emergency before Trump gained power and then effectively silence him as part of a program of stabilising the situation ?

SirRumpole said:

Potential rise of black power movement, much more militarisation of police forces and probably more black shootings leading potentially to a civil war, probable decline in living standards of the poor and middle class as companies use Trump's support to ratchet down wages and conditions coupled with tax cuts for the rich and cuts in public services leading to a loss of consumer confidence and possibly a recession, possible military confrontation with Russia and China and a general feeling of discomfort by most US residents who are not comfortably well off.

But I doubt it will happen, I think Hilary will win.

Click to expand...

Maybe Hilary will win. But I heard Chomsky said she's more hawkish than Bush and Obama. Scary or what? So Bush capture and torture terror suspect; Obama save interrogators trouble by droning them instead. What would Clinton do? I remember her not liking Iran too much and wouldn't mind taking it off the map. Seriously. some 80 million people and she'd go poof on their behind to prove how tough she is.

She's already in the pocket of big business. Had made a couple videos telling the Yanks she runs for poor people like her Mum, fighting for the little guys and all that.

Maybe Jeb Bush would be a good choice (did I just say that?). He seem smarter than big brother W, and while still a politician he actually feel embarass saying stuff like "we ought to only take in Christian refugees".

I think I'll save up and move to Orange and start farming soon.

basilio said:

Would/should a government declare a State of Emergency before Trump gained power and then effectively silence him as part of a program of stabilising the situation ?

Click to expand...

Amazing how the left is actually so frightened by democracy, and I assume it would be for the own good of the nation, as per Stalin or God forbid me to use this parallel, Hitler in the 1930s.
I govern, I know better;
Take some refugees, I know, they are good, look at the Vietnamese and the Italians in the pasts, these nice muslims will be the same.
This is good for the economy:you pay more taxes for their welfare, my mates will make profits from their nappies purchasing
The tea party in the US and the coming backlash in Europe are a direct result of the unability of politicians both right and left to be aware of what life is
Middle class and hope is disappearing, brain washing is the key function of so called education, an orwellian world but the populace is fed day in, day out garbage by the new royalty: corrupt politicians feeding like leeches on the taxpayers.
As a result, you end up with extremes like these buffons.So what is better, a full scale revolution, some of these buffons taking power and kicking the antnest, or worse a win of the apathy and "1984" a reality 40 years later?
Could DT in power be a trigger to a resurgence of real democraty and people powers?
He for one may not need to please the lobbies, in any case, with the senate so corrupt in the US, what could he do?
Do you remember listening to Obama speeches during his first campaigns?And now, what are the end results?
So would you vote for Clinton now?
A mandatory heathcare system a la medicare with mandatory private heath cover as in Oz turning the US into another failed welfare european state, a military lobby in power..I for one would appreciate the US to first take care of itself before spreading war all over the world.
DT could actually be our best chance to avoid a US vs Russia/China war whatever form it will take, as for war with Islam, it started well before him or even the Bush(s).
Sleep well Basilio, in my opinion, the danger is not him taking power, it is him NOT taking power.Think about it that way too

qldfrog said:

Amazing how the left is actually so frightened by democracy, and I assume it would be for the own good of the nation, as per Stalin or God forbid me to use this parallel, Hitler in the 1930s.
I govern, I know better;...
Could DT in power be a trigger to a resurgence of real democraty and people powers?
He for one may not need to please the lobbies, in any case, with the senate so corrupt in the US, what could he do?
Do you remember listening to Obama speeches during his first campaigns?And now, what are the end results?
So would you vote for Clinton now?
A mandatory heathcare system a la medicare with mandatory private heath cover as in Oz turning the US into another failed welfare european state, a military lobby in power..I for one would appreciate the US to first take care of itself before spreading war all over the world.
DT could actually be our best chance to avoid a US vs Russia/China war whatever form it will take, as for war with Islam, it started well before him or even the Bush(s).
Sleep well Basilio, in my opinion, the danger is not him taking power, it is him NOT taking power.Think about it that way too

Click to expand...

The Left is not Stalin's Soviet nor are they Hitler's National Socialist party. Those parties claims to be Socialist but they are not.

The kind of socialism the Left, I am assuming, want is the kind of policies that actually made Western democracies the kind of place people the world over love. It made possible the lore of poor kids making it in the world through hardwork and studies etc.; it demand that the poor and the sick should be cared for by the state; it demand safe and fair work practices etc. etc.

These fundamental changes since WW2 have and are being systematically dismantled - it's happening right now as we speak. ANd it's not being done in by refugees or Muslims or the poor - it's being done in by the rich and the powerful. Clean shaven, well spoken henchman.

If we measure GDP per capita across all the Western countries... I'm sure it's all better and allhigher than it was in the 50s and 60s, even the 70s. Yet all these countries seem to not be able to afford anything for the masses.

Why can't the gov't afford it when the country is richer and techonology and science and industry more profitable and efficient? Wealth distribution. Money flow upwards but blame flow down.