Posted on 03/16/2016 9:22:18 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
The Economist magazine on Wednesday named a potential Donald Trump presidency as one of its top 10 global risks.
“In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of China and Mexico in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war — and at least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] between the U.S. and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016,” the Economist Intelligence Unit wrote in its assessment.
“His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the U.S.) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond,” it added. The publication said it expects Trump, the GOP's presidential front-runner, to lose to Democrat Hillary Clinton in the general election, but noted that a terrorist attack or economic downturn could help put Trump over the top.
“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 policy making,” the magazine said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
It's not a war...it's truth in trade.
Boring but interesting.
About how to solve problems.
“Did you see that SOB interviewed by Hannity tonight? He was justifying the brokered convention shenanigans they have planned. Sean, to his credit, let him have it”
When Sean told him that if the candidate with a huge lead is denied the nomination, his people will walk and not come back. Reince basically confirmed that this was exactly his plan and said it isn’t chicanery.
AHhh, another international globalist endorsement rolls in.
keep ‘em coming!
What next, North Korea and Iran say Trump would be bad for business?
I actually subscribed to the Economist, about ‘95 when I was some kind of libertarian—a ‘try us for two issues’ offer.
Even then I was stuned by their content. Told them no thanks. I remember thinking it was like The Nation.
Took the Weekly Standard and thought it was great for quite a while. American Spectator too.
Ch-ch-ch-changes...
“It is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr. Trump...”
Did they know that DT called both McConnell and Ryan Wed. morning?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-breaks-the-ice-with-congress/article/2585876
Have read some decent articles over the years in the Economist but as you say....
Subscribed to the Spectator for many years and was my favorite but has drifted off the last couple years.
And many others over the years.
The only publication I ever got paid for an article was published in Coevolution Quarterly an off shoot of the Old Mother Earth News back when I was a liberal before Reagan. Was not a political article but humourous though.
Tough to find any one publication to depend on these days and why FR is so good ..... Mostly for the comments.
Only place I can keep a sense of humor and find so many good points of view at the same time.
“Cruz, and the non-stop hours-and-hours per day hate on Trump are bought and paid for by GLOBALISTS, whose future rides upon destroying Trump. “
The number of anti-Trump posts have slacked WAY, WAY off in the last couple of weeks. I suspect it’s partially because the number of paid trolls has greatly diminished as candidates like Rubio drop out and no longer pay them, and candidates like Cruz have diminishing budgets and bigger issues to deal with than paying for a civil war at FR.
In addition, genuine Cruz supporters have become disheartened with continuing Trump victories and poor showings by Cruz, not to mention their overall diminishing numbers due to the fact that so many recently turned away from Cruz in disgust over Cruz’s support of the anarchist leftist mobs paid by George Soros financed organizations to shut down free speech and free assembly.
The sad fact is that Islam is more respected then ever by leftists as a result of 911. And the jihadists love it. And now they rationalize their craven cowardice by saying that being insensitive to the feelings of the Jihadists is the problem.
Bullies multiply when they sense a target is not willing to fight back. But they skulk back to their holes when a strong united front is erected against them.
Or perhaps we could respect the Islamic religion enough to demand they pay us jizya in oil for the right not to be bombed (instead of constantly trying to help them with aid). If they don't like working as our dhimmii, they are always free to reject their barbaric blood cult and join civilization.
Well then, let’s hear about how a Clinton presidency would represent an alternative to being one of the “top 10 global risks”.
It could “rapidly escalate” into international cooperation and prosperity as well.
Global risk only if you have skin in this scam game
Corruption runs deep and wide in politics and business. And it’s world wide. The power brokers are in great fear of being seen for what they are and what the rabble might do once they know the truth.
GRIT is a safe bet. Good information on gardening and raising livestock.
Which we'll all need eventually the rate we're going.
My family used to subscribe to The Economist. We dropped our subscription in 2008 because of that magazines shameless admiration and promotion for Barak Hussein Obama II, which basically told us the mag didn’t care about economics.
Note: Donald J. Trump posses a BA in Economics.
Whatever else you have to say about Trump, you have to admit he has all the right enemies.
This is the biggest Free Traitor™ lie of all. For the last 30 we have been is desperate trade war with the rest of the word. We are not fighting back and the economist thinks Trump could "start" a trade war? It already started LONG LONG time ago.
Anyone who supports the current trade situation is being anti American and cannot call themselves a patriot. Scum is what I call them.
One of the owner / families of the Economist is the Rothchilds and the publication makes no bones about being for globalization.
Trump’s is the only Non Globalist in the race. Well maybe Bernie but...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.