trump Presidencey Seen As Among Top 10 risks facing the World

Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.
The research firm warns he could disrupt the global economy and heighten political and security risks in the US.
However, it does not expect Mr Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton who it sees as “his most likely Democratic contender”.
He is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European Union or an armed clash in the South China Sea.
China encountering a “hard landing” or sharp economic slowdown and Russia’s interventions in Ukraine and Syria preceding a new “cold war” are among the events seen as more dangerous.
“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,” the EIU added.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35828747?ocid=global_bbccom_email_17032016_top+news+stories
See website for the list of the top 10 risks facing the world.
The Economist Intelligence Unit is a sister Group of the Economist Magazine, an adviser to businesses worldwide, formed in 1948
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Intelligence_Unit

What can I say except that I agree. One of the non-Trump GOP contenders would merely be the top risk facing the stability and integrity of the United States, but Trump would have the greater global (negative) impact.

What can I say except that I agree. One of the non-Trump GOP contenders would merely be the top risk facing the stability and integrity of the United States, but Trump would have the greater global (negative) impact.
Like how? Can you expound on that? What would be some examples of Negative Global Impact? Please, list some off. And, uh....try to steer away from lines like..."countries would take us less seriously" unless you can explain how that unfolds and the negative repercussions of "countries taking us less seriously".
Can you expound on that?
I guess you didn't read any of the articles.

Someone explain why anything in those articles is particular to Trump and doesn’t apply to Republicons in general? He just spews their exact same ideas and yet somehow it’s HE who’s going to do all this damage. Ridiculous. And cause others to take us less seriously? Less seriously than they did with uber-loser George W? At least Drumpf is a sometimes successful business person who’s made a fortune (and lost it to…but you have to gain it first to lose it). W didn’t even have that.

Can you expound on that?
I guess you didn't read any of the articles.
Right. So you can't expound on your statement.
"but Trump would have the greater global (negative) impact."
Those are your words right?
Democracy works best when their is loyal opposition. This is far astray from loyal opposition. Not only very serious (change of pace) for us who live here, but this example of American democracy is not my first choice to send to the neighbors
Let's just keep rolling here.... What is "loyal opposition"? What is that? You want to custom tailor a democracy AMH? Hmnn...why does that sound counter intuitive?
Democracy works best when their is loyal opposition. This is far astray from loyal opposition. Not only very serious (change of pace) for us who live here, but this example of American democracy is not my first choice to send to the neighbors
Let's just keep rolling here.... What is "loyal opposition"? What is that? You want to custom tailor a democracy AMH? Hmnn...why does that sound counter intuitive? Friend, just don't know about counter intuitive, but what I think loyal opposition means in this context is British. It has to do with the Queen getting advice from both sides of advisors. I like the idea of having well informed advisors who do not agree on everything to help me come to a decision that has the best probability of success. Loyal opposition may have started out in England but it has little to do with the queen, except that she is the figurehead in England. . It is simoly the party that is in opposition to the party thats in control. it's called "loyal" because both sides are supposed to be loyal in the sense that they are both considered to have the country's best interests at heart, even if they have different ideas of how to get there. The loyal opposition here is like it is in England or at least that's how it's supposed to work. It has to do with with putting the good of the country ahead of he party or the individual--something that is traditionally lacking in this country, especially lately. And there is a decided lack of common courtesy here, as well. Lois
Can you expound on that?
I guess you didn't read any of the articles.
Right. So you can't expound on your statement. We're not here to do your legwork, Vyazma. Click the link, read the article, then come back with something substantive.
We're not here to do your legwork, Vyazma. Click the link, read the article, then come back with something substantive.
:lol: I'm looking for Paine to expound on his statement. I want to to make sure he can understand what he reads. For all I know he may not be able to tell the difference between Mad Magazine and a regular piece of journalism. That's what I'm sensing. Same with you. I don't just read any old article that is thrown in front of me. I take it nobody can explain how Trump will have a Negative Global Impact if he's the president? Better to just post links of "articles" you can bounce around in the echo chamber.
I take it nobody can explain how Trump will have a Negative Global Impact if he's the president?
Last buffoon we had as President, "W" had a negative global impact in his extended mismanaged Iraq war. In terms of buffoonery, Trump is "W" on steroids.