Donald Trump and The Future of Earth: Part 1

I am not an occultist or a mystic. I do not make my predictions based upon any psychic ability, but simple reason. If you like reason and can recognize a reasonable argument, I hope you enjoy this thread:

Thorny Issue 1: Iran

The P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union, made an agreement with the peoples republic of Iran in July 2015, that resulted in EU and US lifting their economic embargo on Iran, and Iran agreeing to reducing its nuclear stockpile and to let its existing facilities be investigated by UN inspectors.

Early speculation based upon Donald Trumps past comments - and overall Republican disapproval of the existing agreement - suggests that the United States will renege on the agreement, which is likely to irritate the powers involved in its formulation - specifically Russia and China.

If - and when - this happens, we are probably going to see an increase in rhetoric from Iran, Israel and the US

Thorny Issue 2: China

I swear - its as if Donald Trump and the Republicans WANT to create a world war. Donald Trump has said that he will not allow China to keep building islands in the south China sea, near the Philippines.



Dueterte, the brash and belligerent new president of the Philippines, said there will be no more joint military drills between his country and the United States. Dueterte, it is said, has now aligned himself with China, which means that Donald Trumps rhetoric directly contradicts the reality. How does he deal with this, given the United States no longer has the advantage of an ally to maintain control of important straits.

So here we have a second "screw you" to China; the first will come when the United States reneges on its agreement, and the second will come when the Trump administration threatens China and its new ally, the Philippines.

Thorny Issue 3: Russia

Donald Trump has stressed from the beginning that he thinks the US pays too much for NATO, saying he will only pay "his fair share". His "fair share", wouldn't essentially cripple NATO and render it toothless: unable to provide the deterrence against Russia that it currently provides.

According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $650 billion on defense last year. That's more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the U.S.

Wow. That's a lot of moola, and I don't think its too implausible to reason that Trump is thinking about transferring billions of US dollars spent on NATO, to build his stupid wall in America. The logic of libertarian isolationism will, of course, result in Russia taking advantage, which is to say, Russia doing to the Eastern Ukraine - then all of Ukraine - just as he did to Crimea in 2014.

Already, we see an axis emerging made up of China, Russia, Iran and Philippines, inasmuch as their interests strategically align in having a common enemy: the United States.

What will President Trump do? Given his isolationist rhetoric, he would leave Europe to protect itself, which explains this recent statement from the EU commission president Europe needs an army.

So Russia and the EU may go to war.

Thorny Issue 4: Reneging on Climate Change Commitments

This is another issue which China in particular expects US commitment. China is not stupid - they WILL assume the moral superiority if Trump decides on doing what he plans to do around the paris climate agreements. It will be a strange and bizarre reversal of the usual norm, where America censures China for not behaving morally.

Thorny Issue 5:Japan and South Korea: protect yourselves

Talk about being the bringer of doom. Trump has talked about reducing troops from South Korea and Japan, and has suggested that the two of them get nuclear bombs.

Recently, however, he has said that he will accept south koreas needs, which means nothing, of course, given how intrsinsically mendacious Trump is.

This article believes that if Trump cannot get the "deal" he wants with South Korea and Japan, he WILL withdraw troops from the koreas, and it doing so, "have more money" for stupid things like building a wall.

Thorny Issue 6: The Wall with Mexico

President Elect Trump will not let this issue go. He intends to build an "army of builders" to construct his wall - which of course will make many people involved and benefiting from the construction process quite happy.

Yet he also intends to MAKE Mexico pay for it. If Trump is serious about this, the Mexican-US relationship may be severely destabilized.

ALL IN ALL

American's were naive in thinking that Trump would "make America great again". The statement meant nothing, but spoke to a sense of restlessness that many older white americans (and machismo minds) believe is "dying".

So what is wanted? Authoritarianism? Machismo? Feeling tough and strong?

Each of the above 6 "thorny issues" will likely arise BECAUSE you have elected someone who is willing to sacrifice blood for respect. And so, as the adage goes, 'pride cometh before the fall'.

a reply to: Astrocyte

My Goodness. The man has not even been sworn into office and you are already complaining. BTW, all of those issues that you mention, are the direct result of the Obama/Clinton incompetency and lies to the American public.

Give it a rest pal. Let's hope for the best, we can only go up from where we are now. Obama now only cares about his legacy. In the end, History will reflect his election as the first African/American President who preached hope and change. The only fact is that he was the first......the rest, the worst. IMHO.

a reply to: Astrocyte

American's were naive in thinking that Trump would "make America great again". The statement meant nothing, but spoke to a sense of restlessness that many older white americans (and machismo minds) believe is "dying".

This has nothing to do about skin color but everything to do with Americans tired of career politicians pandering and not delivering on jack.

There was a mirror movement from the Democrats with Bernie. While he is a career politician he is anti establishment. We also saw a short stint from Ron Paul last cycle so you can act like this wasn't coming, but many of us wanted it (I wanted Ron or Bernie over Trump).

So go throw your temper tantrum after the DNC colluded to kick out Bernie and prop up Trump because they thought Hillary played ball and she could beat Trump.

if NATO can`t survive without American money then let them go and borrow the money to pay for their own survival.

every penny that America contributes to NATO is money that had to be borrowed by the U.S. and has to be repaid by the American taxpayers.

If NATO countries feel that their survival isn`t worth saddling their taxpayers with repaying borrowed money to defend themselves and ensure their survival then that`s their choice.

Time for NATO countries to take more responsibility for their own survival.

a reply to: Astrocyte
I only had to read "issue 1" to know that you aren't being honest with yourself. To anybody that is being objective, all signs indicate the exact opposite of what you're proposing.

Our foreign policy will be run by an extremely accomplished businessman that aims to make deals and reach a happy median for everyone involved.. not some lawyer that is skilled in trying get one over on the other guy.

The world as a whole will be a much better place going forward. Yea some may not be happy about what it means to their Swiss bank account, but there will be a whole lot less killing over trivial things like a pipeline.

a reply to: BoldAlligator

Huh? Follow the logic:

Trump states his opinion -

I explore the systemic effects of this opinion by considering the probable response, and the situation which is most likely to unfold as a function of this opinion.

Aye, clearly, the issue is the ability to think clearly. You do not realize how complicated your body-brain-mind-reflexivity as a being is, so you can't see how delusional and nonsensical your form of argument is.

When someone says something - and states it as a policy direction, it is perfectly reasonable to explore the direction - confrontation - and implications of their position. That's what I did.

But you are very polly-anna about this. You want to think Trump isn't already oriented in crazy directions, when he is.

You will see. People with sharper and clearer minds know where this situation has a high probability of moving.