Trump

[RN7]

I think the shock has sunk in by now.

So has anybody got anything good, bad or indifferent to say about the fact that Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America?

This is I think the most significant event in recent history since the collapse of the Soviet Union 25 years ago. I'd love to hear what people think about all of this in a civil manner, particularly our many American friends.

[kato13]

Even with the crowd here being well above average in terms of civility compared to the rest of the internet, I cannot imagine this staying civil. tempers and the instinct to gloat seem just too high.

I will give it a shot but be warned I WILL drop temp bans for first offenses on name calling or insults. Rae feel free to shut things down anytime even before it starts if you think I am off base on allowing it.

If the thread sees the light of next week I will be amazed, but 2016 has been a year of surprises so who knows.

[kato13]

I do have to say I give Kudos to the New York Times for calling things accurately (once the votes were coming in). They called Florida literally the same minute my analysis solidified.

And their prediction webpage
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

was both accurate and informative all election night.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

I do have to say I give Kudos to the New York Times for calling things accurately (once the votes were coming in). They called Florida literally the same minute my analysis solidified.

And their prediction webpage
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

was both accurate and informative all election night.

I followed the results of the election on BBC internet service as I was outside of the US. The way the results changed during the evening was shocking. The vote for Trump just grew and overtook Clinton in all of the swing states at an alarming rate. Virginia I think was the only swing state in which Clinton retook the lead.

I have to say the performance and accuracy of the mainstream media and pollsters in all of this was very poor. I know many people chose not to vote or voted for an independent candidate, but how did they miss all of the support building for Trump. I'm not going to discuss the allegations made about Trump in the lead up to all of this, but no matter what was said and no matter how many turned their backs on him he defeated 16 other Republican candidates and all of his rallies were constantly sold out. Why did the media not bother to look at this?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by RN7

but no matter what was said and no matter how many turned their backs on him he defeated 16 other Republican candidates and all of his rallies were constantly sold out. Why did the media not bother to look at this?

The Media is overwhelmingly in the Democratic camp. To do or say something that goes against the Party line would likely cause someone to lose their job.
Second, social capital in the form of expressing loudly to all your friends and colleagues of the same political bent makes them all feel good about one another.
Third, the extreme disconnect between white male / female people in Trades or Service sector jobs (Middle class 60K jobs) from those Professional job holders.
Fourth, middle class whites are really damned tired of being told their racists and sexists at every turn. Demonize someone enough and their likely to begin to resent it.
Fifth, job creation has been largely in urban projects or kept to the coasts with poor or no effect or effort felt in rural or small communities.... no one like paying their taxes and seeing nothing for it.
Sixth, job creation efforts have gone to big political contributors again and again on large wasted projects like ethanol or solar panel plants..... Voters resent the Trillions spent be Congress on their buddies in the "Stimulus package"...... Which amounted to $300,000 per taxpayer. Most would agree if you just gave everyone $300,000 dollars the stimulus would have cared for itself.
Seventh, white middle class America lost their homes, savings, and hope with the Great Recession......... and despite the stock market and everyone else the recovery has not happened for them.

[kato13]

Yeah the NYT was way off before the votes were counted, but as a data obsessed person AND a web designer that tool was awesome and accurate.

As to how the pollsters and media missed the final result so badly I am a firm believer in the SHY/OBSTINATE Trump voter and the concept of self reinforcement to support your own views.

First off, in some circles, if you even show an inkling of support of Trump you will be personally attacked. Heck even the Democratic candidate did it (half of you belong in basket of deplorable). Some supporters will NEVER admit to pollsters where there vote is going. That is why Trump did better in Rasmussen (done by computer rather than humans), and the LA Times poll which followed the same voters for 6 months.

The second effect was an echo chamber in the media. The facts they found seemed to reinforce their conclusions and led to people finding more facts to support what in many cases what they wanted to be true.

Nate Silver is a pretty strong liberal, and he is great with numbers. He was attacked for suggesting that Trump might have a 30% chance to win. The Huffington Post (who had Trumps chances at 2%) said he was being dishonest with the people following him, that he was "putting his thumb on the scale for Trump" and also accused Silver of "punditry" in this election cycle. Silver not unsurprisingly went ballistic.

So you have a man who I am sure did not want Trump to win, but he was being honest and was attacked (and not seriously defended by the media as far as I saw) for stating his analysis. Silver was the media's golden boy when he accurately predicted 99 out of 100 states during Obama's two elections, but turn against the prevailing wisdom and find yourself left out in the cold.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Fifth, job creation has been largely in urban projects or kept to the coasts with poor or no effect or effort felt in rural or small communities.... no one like paying their taxes and seeing nothing for it.

For the last year I have spent about 10 hours a week following politics and I honestly never considered that factor. Chalk me up as another uninformed urbanite.

[.45cultist]

Voter turn out was amazing. I waited 2 hours in line to vote. As for T2k later timelines, Perhaps strengthening strained relations with allies leads to later pulling the U.S. into war. More weapons and other preps available for CONUS campaigns. It seems to have rocked the international world like the recent Brexit vote. Warmer Russian/U.S. relations and fractured EU leads a misguided future Russian leadership to war?

[dragoon500ly]

I was blown away by the sheer number of new voters. I've always voted early (no lines), but this time, voting three weeks early, and having to wait over an hour!?!?!? Not only the usual crowd of old folks, but a shocking number of 18-19 year olds, college students, and a large number of blue collar workers, lots of people showing their IDs and registering as voters for the first time.

It has certainly been a most...interesting election.

[Cdnwolf]

Thank god I am a Snow Mexican. Time to build our Northern Wall.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Thank god I am a Snow Mexican. Time to build our Northern Wall.

Who's going pay for it

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The Media is overwhelmingly in the Democratic camp. To do or say something that goes against the Party line would likely cause someone to lose their job.

To me the media was very biased against Trump from the outset. I think there was little of no positivity towards Trump or anything he said throughout his campaign. Like the Democratic Party they were also complacent and dismissive about his support.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Second, social capital in the form of expressing loudly to all your friends and colleagues of the same political bent makes them all feel good about one another.

This mindset seems to have taken hold.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Third, the extreme disconnect between white male / female people in Trades or Service sector jobs (Middle class 60K jobs) from those Professional job holders.
Fourth, middle class whites are really damned tired of being told their racists and sexists at every turn. Demonize someone enough and their likely to begin to resent it.
Fifth, job creation has been largely in urban projects or kept to the coasts with poor or no effect or effort felt in rural or small communities.... no one like paying their taxes and seeing nothing for it.
Sixth, job creation efforts have gone to big political contributors again and again on large wasted projects like ethanol or solar panel plants..... Voters resent the Trillions spent be Congress on their buddies in the "Stimulus package"...... Which amounted to $300,000 per taxpayer. Most would agree if you just gave everyone $300,000 dollars the stimulus would have cared for itself.
Seventh, white middle class America lost their homes, savings, and hope with the Great Recession......... and despite the stock market and everyone else the recovery has not happened for them.

Its quite clear that the Democratic Party completely underestimated the groundswell of discontent against them. Clinton ran a very complacent and lazy campaign as she knew she had the media, corporate backers and the celebrities in her pocket.

From what I can see Clinton got the black vote, but not as many blacks turned out to vote as she is not black like Obama. She also got the Latin/Mexican vote in some states but it wasn't not big enough to carry her. But she did not get the rest of the Hispanic vote (Cubans in Florida), and some evidence to think that many middle class Hispanics and Asians now think like their white counterparts. Clinton failed abysmally with white voters excluding liberals. The loss of the white working class and much of the white middle class lost her the election.

ArmySGT's reasons are very valid. How can you expect to win an election if you ignore the largest demographic group and dominant cultural and wealth generating and tax paying bloc in your electorate.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

As to how the pollsters and media missed the final result so badly I am a firm believer in the SHY/OBSTINATE Trump voter and the concept of self reinforcement to support your own views.

I think there was plenty of evidence to suggest that the SHY/OBSTINATE Trump voter was out there all along. The media just didn't bother going out to many of the suburbs, small towns and rural communities were its existed quite overtly.

Originally Posted by kato13

First off, in some circles, if you even show an inkling of support of Trump you will be personally attacked. Heck even the Democratic candidate did it (half of you belong in basket of deplorable). Some supporters will NEVER admit to pollsters where there vote is going. That is why Trump did better in Rasmussen (done by computer rather than humans), and the LA Times poll which followed the same voters for 6 months.

Yes there was some bullying going on. In areas which voted overwhelmingly for Clinton you could be called at worst a bigot for supporting Trump, or at least be considered ill informed.

Originally Posted by kato13

The second effect was an echo chamber in the media. The facts they found seemed to reinforce their conclusions and led to people finding more facts to support what in many cases what they wanted to be true.

Nate Silver is a pretty strong liberal, and he is great with numbers. He was attacked for suggesting that Trump might have a 30% chance to win. The Huffington Post (who had Trumps chances at 2%) said he was being dishonest with the people following him, that he was "putting his thumb on the scale for Trump" and also accused Silver of "punditry" in this election cycle. Silver not unsurprisingly went ballistic.

So you have a man who I am sure did not want Trump to win, but he was being honest and was attacked (and not seriously defended by the media as far as I saw) for stating his analysis. Silver was the media's golden boy when he accurately predicted 99 out of 100 states during Obama's two elections, but turn against the prevailing wisdom and find yourself left out in the cold.

It was all a bit biased and blinkered I think. The mainstream media was very pro-Clinton and did not want to hear any view but there own during all of this. Their behaviour was as poor as their standard of reporting. They claim to be a free media but their coverage of the election showed them to be anything but.

[swaghauler]

I cannot speak for the rest of the Union, but in PA, it was very clear what was going to happen. For the first time that I can remember, Rural PA turned out to vote in numbers equal to or greater than Urban PA (Pittsburgh and Philly). While the vast majority of PA is Democratic-leaning pro-union voters, a few of things happened that caused a "quantum shift" in PA politics. The blame lays SQUARELY at the feet of President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

The First Issue was President Obama's "War on Coal." Most of rural PA's jobs involve farming, logging, coal mining and drilling/fracking. Many communities (especially in the Wilds) began to suffer as the various industries who were affected by President Obama's sanctions (to reduce emissions) began to shut down. This didn't take just the best jobs in the region, it took ALL the jobs in the region. It's hard to run a grocery store or other "service related" industry when NO ONE has any money to buy your product. To add "insult to injury," many of the workers were denied Federal funding for job retraining. The feds ACTUALLY HAD THE NERVE TO SAY "you should have seen this coming and planned for it." Hillary vowed to continue with the "War on Coal." While I do believe in Global Warming, it's pretty hard to tell entire communities "You must starve for the good of the planet..." especially when China and India are NOT doing their part. In fact, my absence from the forum lately is due to the oilfield companies abandoning the Allegheny National Forest in force. They are moving out huge amounts of equipment due to the costs of extraction now.

The Second Issue was the debacle that is Obamacare. The Democrats INCORRECTLY assumed that most if not all businesses would simply pay for health care. NOTHING could be further from the truth in PA. The vast majority of affected businesses in my region just dropped ALL of their full-time employees to part-time rather than pay for healthcare. They also tried to "punish" workers for voting Democrat by requiring those workers to work FIVE hours a day for FIVE DAYS PER WEEK. This made it difficult to go get a second job to make up the lost income. To add "insult to injury," several of these workers made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but just enough money to have to pay the FINE FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE. So not only did Rural PA residents LOSE THEIR FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINED THEM FOR BEING TOO POOR TO BUY INSURANCE ON OUR "SO CALLED" HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE! Hillary vowed to continue with this program as well.

The last major Issue that really had rural PA residents "up in arms" was, in fact, ARMS. PA has an absolutely HUGE number of gun owners. It has been stated that there are more hunters in the woods of PA on the opening day of Buck Season than there are Law Enforcement Officer on duty in the ENTIRE US. HALF of all rural PA residents are Veterans. The 1994 Assault Weapons Bill was very poorly received in PA. Hillary wanted a reinstatement of "reasonable gun control measures." Most rural PA residents DID NOT SEE a new Assault Weapon's Bill as "reasonable."

Most PA residents DID NOT VOTE FOR Trump. They VOTED AGAINST Hillary. In fact, if you talk to most PA residents, they will tell you that they want a Convention Of States to make what they see as "much-needed changes" to the Constitution.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I cannot speak for the rest of the Union, but in PA, it was very clear what was going to happen. For the first time that I can remember, Rural PA turned out to vote in numbers equal to or greater than Urban PA (Pittsburgh and Philly). While the vast majority of PA is Democratic-leaning pro-union voters, a few of things happened that caused a "quantum shift" in PA politics. The blame lays SQUARELY at the feet of President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

The First Issue was President Obama's "War on Coal." Most of rural PA's jobs involve farming, logging, coal mining and drilling/fracking. Many communities (especially in the Wilds) began to suffer as the various industries who were affected by President Obama's sanctions (to reduce emissions) began to shut down. This didn't take just the best jobs in the region, it took ALL the jobs in the region. It's hard to run a grocery store or other "service related" industry when NO ONE has any money to buy your product. To add "insult to injury," many of the workers were denied Federal funding for job retraining. The feds ACTUALLY HAD THE NERVE TO SAY "you should have seen this coming and planned for it." Hillary vowed to continue with the "War on Coal." While I do believe in Global Warming, it's pretty hard to tell entire communities "You must starve for the good of the planet..." especially when China and India are NOT doing their part. In fact, my absence from the forum lately is due to the oilfield companies abandoning the Allegheny National Forest in force. They are moving out huge amounts of equipment due to the costs of extraction now.

The Second Issue was the debacle that is Obamacare. The Democrats INCORRECTLY assumed that most if not all businesses would simply pay for health care. NOTHING could be further from the truth in PA. The vast majority of affected businesses in my region just dropped ALL of their full-time employees to part-time rather than pay for healthcare. They also tried to "punish" workers for voting Democrat by requiring those workers to work FIVE hours a day for FIVE DAYS PER WEEK. This made it difficult to go get a second job to make up the lost income. To add "insult to injury," several of these workers made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but just enough money to have to pay the FINE FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE. So not only did Rural PA residents LOSE THEIR FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINED THEM FOR BEING TOO POOR TO BUY INSURANCE ON OUR "SO CALLED" HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE! Hillary vowed to continue with this program as well.

The last major Issue that really had rural PA residents "up in arms" was, in fact, ARMS. PA has an absolutely HUGE number of gun owners. It has been stated that there are more hunters in the woods of PA on the opening day of Buck Season than there are Law Enforcement Officer on duty in the ENTIRE US. HALF of all rural PA residents are Veterans. The 1994 Assault Weapons Bill was very poorly received in PA. Hillary wanted a reinstatement of "reasonable gun control measures." Most rural PA residents DID NOT SEE a new Assault Weapon's Bill as "reasonable."

This seems to be the main reason why people turned against the Democrats. Obama/Clinton seem to have been oblivious to what many people actually though about the consequences of their policies. While they were off on a crusade to end global warming and gain applause for championing a number of social issues, they never gave a second thought to how their policies were effecting the income and lives of many Americans who don't live in a big city which was naïve and irresponsible in the extreme. Also while they were doing all of this they happily lobbied for corporate interests after receiving a nice donation, and as corporations saw their profits soar the industrial heart of most of America was shut down or transferred overseas. Even though I am not American I am married to an American and my son is American, and I do feel great sympathy for many Americans who have suffered during this period. The more I think about all of this the more I think that the Democrats don't deserve much sympathy for the predicament they now find themselves in.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Most PA residents DID NOT VOTE FOR Trump. They VOTED AGAINST Hillary. In fact, if you talk to most PA residents, they will tell you that they want a Convention Of States to make what they see as "much-needed changes" to the Constitution.

I think you nailed it on the head. Many who voted Trump did not care for him as an individual but voted for him to stop Clinton from becoming president and causing more harm.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I will say this: I think the chance for a shooting war with Russia and all that it entails (nuclear exchanges) is significantly lessened. Look, one of the leaked documents from Hillary Clinton's server discussed how she would aim to put 10000 US troops on the ground in Syria (thus virtually guaranteeing contact with Assad's forces or Russian forces). She'd mask it in the form of goading McCain into asking for 100000 and then "propose" a "more reasonable" mere ten thousand.

So we're not going full T2k just yet.

Canada and Mexico both have now stated they want to renegotiate NAFTA which will hopefully work out well for US industry.

The Chinese gov't has reached out to Trump to start preliminary talks, but who knows what they get up to.

All in all I'm guardedly optimistic. Yes, the election itself was a shitshow but which one hasn't been?

The social justice crowd of <censored> who are now demanding the entire voting process be usurped and the presidency just given to Hillary Clinton crack me up. What does not amuse me is that George Soros is funding the entire affair and is out and out trying to foment an armed uprising in the United States to further his globalist aims. At some point I think US federal law enforcement needs to intervene against him.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

The social justice crowd of crybullies who are now demanding the entire voting process be usurped and the presidency just given to Hillary Clinton crack me up. What does not amuse me is that George Soros is funding the entire affair and is out and out trying to foment an armed uprising in the United States to further his globalist aims. At some point I think US federal law enforcement needs to intervene against him.

First off, let's not start throwing loaded terms like "social justice crowd of crybullies" out there- it's not constructive and it's liable to cause offense. Consider that, despite the sample size on this thread, not everyone here voted for Trump or shares his POVs.

Let's be fair. Neither side has been/is handling the election results with much grace.

Yes, some in the anti-Trump bloc are acting childishly and that's unfortunate. On the other hand, I wonder how Trump supporters would have acted if he had lost the election, especially if he'd won the popular vote. He was claiming the election was rigged well before election day- priming the pump, if you will.

On FB, I saw quite a few memes of gun-porn accompanied with "In case Hillary wins..." tags in the days leading up to the election. What does that suggest? And the GOP has plenty of shadowy financiers with agendas too.

And, unless you live under a rock, there's been plenty of rather unsettling incidents of post-election hate-speech against groups perceived as not falling into the Trump demographic. At least he came out and said "stop it" (in a 60 Minutes interview that aired last night).

[Raellus]

A Trump presidency might actually encourage Russian and Chinese aggression. If Trump tries to distance the U.S. from NATO, even a bit, Putin might interpret it as carte blanche to officially annex East Ukraine or even the Baltics. Without the U.S.A., NATO is a paper tiger.

Protectionist trade policy vis-à-vis China might encourage China to act out in East Asia.

I hope not, but we shall see.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Let's be fair. Neither side has/is handling the election results with much grace.

Fully agree. Feel free to drop the hammer and/or use any tools (edits, warnings, bans, locks) available to you.

We have done OK so far, but this board is not for this purpose and I don't want to lose users.

The only reason I am allowing this is this is an intelligent group and Intelligent people like to discuss ideas. Please everyone don't make me regret this.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

A Trump presidency might actually encourage Russian and Chinese aggression. If Trump tries to distance the U.S. from NATO, even a bit, Putin might interpret it as carte blanche to officially annex East Ukraine or even the Baltics. Without the U.S.A., NATO is a paper tiger.

Protectionist trade policy vis-à-vis China might encourage China to act out in East Asia.

I hope not, but we shall see.

This aspect of Trump's presidency is a lot more interesting to me as I think it relates to the general aspect of T2K. Other domestic American issues are obviously very important to American members and others, but I think they are also a bit too divisive to discuss in a civilised tone and are maybe a bit beyond the scope and interest of this forum.

I know Kato doesn't want a full blown firefight over the result and implications of Trump becoming president. However its also too significant of an event to just ignore as it will effect the entire world in a way that no previous US presidential election has ever done before.

So maybe it would be better to just discuss certain aspects of how Trump will lead America over the next four years, and concentrate on maybe foreign trade and the economy, and US political relations with NATO allies, Russia, China and the Middle East.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Raellus

A Trump presidency might actually encourage Russian and Chinese aggression. If Trump tries to distance the U.S. from NATO, even a bit, Putin might interpret it as carte blanche to officially annex East Ukraine or even the Baltics. Without the U.S.A., NATO is a paper tiger.

Protectionist trade policy vis-à-vis China might encourage China to act out in East Asia.

I hope not, but we shall see.

I really hope it spurs the Euros to take their own national defense seriously. To fund it properly, not use it as a dumping ground for unemployed youth, and as a cauldron for mixing up some social/cultural experiments with a demographic that cannot legally resist.

Yes, I am aware that most European nations cannot come close to approximating the U.S. defense expenditures. Completely, aware. I was in Germany, Spain, and the Balkans in 99-02..... and as an MP worked with other nations in Enduring Freedom......

There are Armies, and then there are Armies.

I am not talking about modern arms.... I am talking about field training and specialized training schools..... The U.S. was never able to call on European Alpine mountain troops for operations in Afghanistan.... despite the participation of nations with said troops on active duty.

Ok... I am getting ranty here and just going to stop.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Who's going pay for it

Wait........ You guys don't build a wall every November? I thought this was why yanks only crossed in the summer.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I really hope it spurs the Euros to take their own national defense seriously.

This is my favorite factoid on the subject.

New York City spends more on policing than 13 NATO members each do on their national defense.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...fense-spending

Another important quote

In 2015 (the date for which the most recent NATO figures are available), only five of 28 NATO member states—Estonia, Greece, Poland, the United States, and the United Kingdom—spent the required 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense.

Some countries spend less than half the required amount. If Trump being elected motivates them to keep up with their commitments, I think that is a positive change.

[.45cultist]

This summer a middle eastern diplomat told John Kerry it was better to be an enemy than a friend to the U.S. There is more chaos than believed, and as we know, a believable timeline, scenario is difficult.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

This summer a middle eastern diplomat told John Kerry it was better to be an enemy than a friend to the U.S. There is more chaos than believed, and as we know, a believable timeline, scenario is difficult.

Oh yes, this little quote has been making the rounds for some time. The political failures of the last ten years will be coming home to roost!

Around my office, the general opinion is for an upsurge in terrorist attacks, both in Europe and the U.S.. Couple this with the latest antics by the Palestinian Authority, and there is a excellent chance for yet another round of Arab-Israeli fighting.

Next couple of years are going to be very interesting...and more than a little stupid!

[RN7]

To give my own two cents on what's going to happen under Trump.

Infrastructure: Trump made a lot of references to how the US has fallen behind other countries in the condition of its road and rail network, bridges and airports, and there is talk about renovating the deprived inner-cities. Certainly in comparison to some Western European countries, China, Japan and the Gulf States the US has neglected its transport infrastructure. This is a major project and could cost up to one US$ trillion or more and I'm not sure how he is going to fund it, but it would be a popular move and I think we can expect some action on this in the near future. I think it will be part of his strategy to rebuild American industry, and it will provide a big boost to the construction and steel industries.

Climate Change: Trump is no believer in climate change and is heavily critical of other countries such as China and India which are now the main contributors to emissions. He will almost certainly pull America out of or heavily modify the Paris Climate Agreement to suit America. He really has no choice if he wants to revitalize the coal industry and expand the energy and petrochemical sectors which will be vital to creating jobs and expanding the economy. This could prove a major political problem for Trump over the next few years.

NAFTA: I think it's fair to say that it's dead at least in its current form. I don't think Canada has too much to worry about but Mexico certainly does. All of those factories which relocated to Mexico to take advantage of cheap labour exist for the purpose of exporting manufactured products back to the US. They make huge profits for US companies and the Mexican government takes its cut in various types of taxes, and the factories employ hundreds of thousands if not millions of Mexicans. It's going to be tough on the Mexican economy as these factories are on the frontline if Trump carries through his promise to bring industry back to America, but Mexico is a potentially rich country and it's a shame its government and ruling class have done little to exploit that fact. Trump could also use the threat of this to force Mexico to at least patrol its own border if not partially fund a wall/fence on the border.

NATO and Europe: Trump wants the Europeans to pay their share of the defence burden. The US accounts for 70% of NATO's budget so the Europeans have no real argument here. To be fair Britain does spend its fair share on defence, but the other big European powers such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain really do not. I don't think Trump is anti-NATO but he does expect rich European countries to spend more on their own defence. Higher defence spending will hit the budgets of all European countries, and with Russia flexing its muscles in the east and a lot of money and resources being diverted to cater for the flood of immigrants and refugees it could lead to a lot of discontent in Europe as other services are strained. Europe has a lot less to worry about in trade issues than Asia as US owned factories in Europe are mainly US owned subsidiaries that have been around for decades or were specifically built to have access to the European market. However Ireland's status as a tax haven for some US corporations will be heavily scrutinised, and Germany could take some flak for running a US$ 75 billion trade surplus with America.

It will be interesting to see how Trump develops US relations with the major European powers over the next couple of years. Brexit highlighted the relative faults and limitations of the European Union, and with Jean Claude Juncker wanting to escalate the formation of a EU Army because Trump is now US president it will be even more interesting to note how individual European countries will really support a new army that excludes the US and British armed forces. Trump's political views are also the polar opposite to Angela Merkel and Francoise Hollande in Germany and France, although maybe less divergent with those of Britain's Theresa May. With Europe's financial problems and the chaos caused by the huge influx of refugees I think it's possible we could also see right wing governments taking power in France and Germany in the very near future.

Russia: Trump and Putin seem to have a lot of mutual respect for each other, so we should see a diffusion of tension with the Russians. However I think Putin imagines that Russia will be an equal to America on the world stage, but I don't think Trump thinks that and has a tongue in cheek attitude to Putin. Trump will certainly lift the current sanctions against Russia which is crippling the Russian economy, and I think he will give Russia a free hand in the Crimea, the Ukraine and the former Soviet states as they are of no real interest to America. The US will probably also cooperate with Russia over Syria and ISIS. I could also see Trump using the threat of Russia to force European members of NATO to spend more on their own defence.

The Middle East: I think Trump's attitude to the Middle East will cause some problems. Trump will go after ISIS more aggressively than Obama, so we will see more US forces sent to the region and there will be some cooperation with the Russians in Syria in this matter. Other than that I think Trump's attitude towards the Middle East is that its more trouble than its worth. America no longer needs oil from the Arabs and OPEC, so they can no longer dictate American policy in the region. Trump is definitely pro-Israeli which is bad news for the Palestinian National Authority and its backers. Its also bad news for Iran and we will see an abandonment or radical modification of Iran's nuclear deal. Saudi Arabia could also find themselves in trouble as I can't see Trump tolerating their export of Islamic fanatics and manipulation of oil prices while America underwrites its national security.

China and Asia: Trump heavily criticised China in his election campaign and I can't see him backing away from changing the current status quo of US-Chinese trade relations. I don't know if Trump will carry out his threat to impose heavy taxes on Chinese imports and start a full scale trade war. Trump may simply tax selective Chinese imports and dangle incentives to encourage US companies to bring the factories back to America, but it's not good news for the Chinese economy no matter what way you look at it and I think China's day in the sun is over. At the very least China will have to seriously reduce its US$ 343 billion trade surplus with America and reel in its government backed cyber-espionage/thievery.

China of course is a lot more economically and politically powerful than Mexico. China owns US$ 1.3 trillion worth of US Treasury Bonds and could seriously disrupt the supply chain that supplies the US and the developed world with manufactured goods. China could also target selective US companies in China and not buy any more airplanes from Boeing. But the Chinese economy is already in serious trouble largely due to its own making, and the money it earns from its trade surplus is dependent on factories which make goods for foreign corporations (mostly American). If the US imposes tariffs on Chinese imports and also sanctions certain Chinese companies and individuals from trading and using US dollars like they are currently doing with Russia then the Chinese economy could collapse. A hardline Chinese government could also cause a lot of trouble in the Far East for America and its allies. Chinese defence spending is of course linked to its economy but finding money for arms has never been a problem for communist dictatorships. China could cause no end of trouble in the South China Sea and threaten Taiwan and other countries in the region with whom it has territorial disputes notably Japan. China could also encourage and even fund North Korean aggression. The role of Russia could also be important in this respect as Russia is the main source of Chinese arms purchases and military technology and a lot of its energy and raw materials.

Other Asian countries could also face the wrath of Trump over trade. Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan have a combined trade surplus of US$ 130 billion with America, with Japan alone accounting for a US$ 67 billion trade surplus. Japan is likely to face the worst criticism as Japan also owns US$ 1.1 trillion of US Treasury Bonds which is nearly as much as China, and is the second largest investor in America after Britain. Japan also spends 1% of its economy on its own defence and this expenditure is less than Britain and France despite the fact that the Japanese economy is as large as the combined British and French economies. Like many NATO countries in Europe Japan has no argument here. The knock on effect of trade trouble with China and other could also put the entire Asia-Pacific region into recession, and will also hit the resource and energy export orientated Australian economy.

[Project_Sardonicus]

I'm just fascinated if he's krell or if he's going to lead new america

[WallShadow]

Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus

I'm just fascinated if he's krell or if he's going to lead new america

Or steal the Heart of Gold with the Infinite Improbability Drive and go swanning off about the Galaxy with a neurotic robot, an Earth Chick, and two impromptu hitchhikers who are being sought by Vogons...?

[James Langham2]

As a quick thought, if this election can be this disputed, just think of the disputes in the canon election!