Neocons Panic That Trump Presidency Would Mark End to Their New World Order

Neocons Panic That Trump Presidency Would Mark End to Their New World Order
© AFP 2016/ Michael B. Thomas
US
18:44 06.03.2016(updated 21:29 06.03.2016) Get short URL
364042471

As eccentric billionaire Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump continues to rack up primary victories, the party's establishment is beginning to wonder whether the political outsider can be stopped. Alarmed, neoconservative pundit Anne Applebaum goes so far as to suggest that a Trump presidency would mark "the end of the West as we know it."

On Saturday, real estate mogul Donald Trump racked up two more primary victories, winning in Louisiana and Kentucky, and thus securing a total of 373 delegates, with establishment candidates Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich trailing with 291, 122 and 33 delegates, respectively.
With some pundits now openly asking whether the Republican establishment really has a chance to derail Trump, others, including neocon journalist Anne Applebaum, have resorted to scaremongering. 
In a recent op-ed for The Washington Post, Applebaum, an American-Polish journalist known for her hawkish, stridently anti-Russian attitudes, laid out a worst-case scenario for the Euro-Atlanticist empire, warning that "right now, we are two or three bad elections away from the end of NATO, the end of the European Union and maybe the end of the liberal world order as we know it." 
"In the United States, we are faced with the real possibility of Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump, which means we have to take seriously the possibility of a President Trump. Hillary Clinton's campaign might implode for any number of reasons, too obvious to rehash here; elections are funny things, and electorates are fickle."
"That means," Applebaum warns, "that next January we could have, in the White House, a man who is totally uninterested in what presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan – as well as Johnson, Nixon and Truman – would all have called 'our shared values.'"
Blowing through Trump's domestic policy proposals in one sentence, what seems to interest the journalist more is his approach to foreign policy, particularly as it relates to Russia and Eastern Europe, of course. 
"[Trump] brags that he 'would not care much' whether Ukraine was admitted to NATO; he has no interest in NATO and its security guarantees. Of Europe, he has written that 'their conflicts are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually'. In any case, he prefers the company of dictators to that of other democrats. 'You can make deals with those people,' he has said of Russia. 'I would have a great relationship with [Vladimir] Putin.'"
The journalist goes on to suggest that "not only is Trump uninterested in America's alliances, he would be incapable of sustaining them. In practice, both military and economic unions require not the skills of a shady property magnate who 'makes deals' but boring negotiations, unsatisfying compromises and, sometimes, the sacrifice of one's own national preferences for the greater good."
Moreover, "in an era when foreign policy debate has in most Western countries disappeared altogether, replaced by the reality TV of political entertainment, all of these things are much hard to explain and justify to a public that isn't remotely interested," Applebaum laments.
If by 'all of these things' she means endless wars and Washington's fumbling attempt to preserve its shaky global hegemony, perhaps there's a little more thought behind American voters' logic toward anti-establishment candidates than she gives them credit for.
Europe Too Faces the 'Threat' of the Anti-Globalists
In Europe too, Applebaum warns, things aren’t looking good for the Euro-Atlanticists.
"Americans aren't the only ones who find their alliances burdensome. A year from now, France also holds a presidential election. One of the frontrunners, Marine Le Pen of the National Front, has promised to leave both NATO and the EU, to nationalize French companies and to restrict foreign investors."
"Like Trump," the neocon writes, "[Le Pen] foresees a special relationship with Russia, whose banks are funding her election campaign. French friends assure me that if she makes it to the final round, the center-left and center-right will band together, as they did two decades ago against her father. But elections are funny things, and electorates are fickle. What if Le Pen's opponent suddenly falls victim to a scandal? What if another Islamic State attack jolts Paris?"
In other words, Applebaum seems to imply, 'what if, as a result of an attack by the Islamic caliphate which the US-led invasion of Iraq created and US Persian gulf allies have bankrolled, the French people were to vote for a politician opposed to foreign control of French affairs and to the policy of endless imperial adventures around the world?'
As for her jab suggesting that Russia is bankrolling the National Front's campaign, Le Pen has been very open in her explanation, noting that she took a loan from a private Russian bank because no French bank would give her one. In fact, she has since said, she would cancel the loan with the Russian bank if a French bank were to make a counter-proposition, but she is yet to receive one.
But Applebaum isn't done yet. By the time French elections come around, she notes, "Britain may also be halfway out the door. In June, the British vote in a referendum to leave the EU. Right now, the vote is too close to call –and if the 'leave vote' prevails, then, as I've written, all bets are off. Copycat referendums may follow in other EU countries too. Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, sometimes speaks of leaving the West in favor of a strategic alliance with Istanbul or Moscow."
And for the journalist, "it's not hard at all to imagine a Britain unmoored from Europe drifting away from the transatlantic alliance as well." 
To make things even worse, in Applebaum's mind, "if the economic turmoil that could follow a British exit from the EU were sufficiently severe, perhaps the British public would vote out its conservative government in favor of the Labour Party, whose leadership is now radically anti-American. Everyone discounts Jeremy Corbyn, the far-left Labour leader, but they also discounted Trump. Corbyn is the only viable alternative if the public wants a change. Elections are funny things, and electorates are fickle."
Ultimately, the journalist anxiously notes, "without France, Europe's single market will cease to exist. Without Britain, it's hard to see how NATO lasts long either. Not everyone will be sorry. As Trump's appealing rhetoric makes clear, the cost of alliances ('millions of dollars annually') are easier to see than the longer-term gains."

Is Donald Trump dangerous?

UpdateCancel

Answer Wiki

13 Answers






Kelly La Rue, Professional psychic

1.5k Views •

Kelly has 490+ answers in

Politics of the United States of America.


As a demagogue and I doubt he believes much of what he says and his oratory is highlighting the caricature the Republican party has become compared to what it once was.  However he is creating some volatile attitudes among some of the unhinged in our society with his racist remarks.  His irresponsibility makes him dangerous:

As the Republican Party grows more and more concerned about Donald Trump, at least one group is loving his rise to prominence: white supremacists. Politico reports that the white supremacist website Stormfront has had to upgrade its servers to handle all the new traffic coming their way since Trump took off in the polls; the Ku Klux Klan confirms that Trump has served as a major talking point for feeling out recruits.
"He's made it okay to talk about these incredible concerns of European Americans today," former KKK grand wizard and onetime Louisiana representative David Duke said.
Hate group monitors at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League warn that Trump's statements about banning Muslims and rounding up Mexicans have "energized" racist intellectuals and neo-Nazis. "When well-known public figures make these kind of statements in the public square, they are taken as a permission-giving by criminal elements who go out and act on their words," SPLC's Mark Potak told Politico. White supremacist groups credit surging interest to Donald Trump: 'He's certainly creating a movement' 

https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-dangerous

Trump’s America

Why the Donald is dangerous
Sep 5th 2015 | From the print edition

• 
  Add this article to your reading list by clicking this button
  
  
  
  

“THIS country is a hellhole. We are going down fast,” says Donald Trump. “We can’t do anything right. We’re a laughing-stock all over the world. The American dream is dead.” It is a dismal prospect, but fear not: a solution is at hand. “I went to the Wharton School of Business. I’m, like, a really smart person,” says Mr Trump. “It’s very possible”, he once boasted, “that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”
When Mr Trump first announced that he was running for president, he was dismissed as a joke. A wheeler-dealer with lots of experience of reality TV but none whatsoever of elective office wants to be commander-in-chief? Surely, sophisticates scoffed, no one could want this erratic tycoon’s fingers anywhere near the nuclear button. But for weeks now he has led the polls for the Republican nomination, despite saying things that would have torpedoed any normal campaign. Americans are waking up to the possibility that a man whose hobby is naming things after himself might—conceivably—be the nominee of the party of Lincoln and Reagan. It is worth spelling out why that would be a terrible thing. Fortunately, the Donald’s own words provide a useful guide.

In this section

• Trump’s America
  
• Merkel the bold
  
• All fall down
  
• Clueless and immoral
  
• Costly cash
  

Reprints


Mr Trump is not in thrall to the hobgoblins of consistency. On abortion, he has said both “I’m very pro-choice” and “I’m pro-life”. On guns, he has said “Look, there’s nothing I like better than nobody has them” and “ fully support and back up the Second Amendment” (which guarantees the right to bear arms). He used to say he wanted a single-payer health service. Now he is much vaguer, promising only to replace Obamacare with “something terrific”. In 2000 he sought the presidential nomination of the Reform Party. A decade ago he said “I probably identify more as Democrat.” Now he is a Republican.

Advertisement: Replay Ad

Advertisement

Blowing his own Trumpet
In an interview this week (see article) The Economist asked Mr Trump why Republican voters seem willing to give him a pass on so many issues they normally hold dear. He took this to be a question about religion, since he is not much of a churchgoer and struggles to cite a single verse from Scripture. “I’m strongly into the Bible, I’m strongly into God and religion,” he declared. But within a few seconds he appeared to grow bored with the topic and switched to talking about how he has “a net worth of much more than $10 billion” and “some of the greatest assets in the world”, including the Trump Tower, the Trump Turnberry golf resort, and so on.



Choice quotes from The Economist's interview with Donald Trump

On one domestic issue, to be fair, he has staked out a clear, bold position. Alas, it is an odious one. He wants to build a wall on the Mexican border and somehow make Mexico pay for it. He would deport all 11m immigrants currently thought to be in America illegally. Apart from the misery this would cause, it would also cost $285 billion, by one estimate—roughly $900 in new taxes for every man, woman and child left in Mr Trump’s America. This is necessary, he argues, because Mexican illegal immigrants are “bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” Not only would he round them all up; he would also round up and expel their children who were born on American soil and are therefore American citizens. That this would be illegal does not bother him.
His approach to foreign affairs is equally crude. He would crush Islamic State and send American troops to “take the oil”. He would “Make America great again”, both militarily and economically, by being a better negotiator than all the “dummies” who represent the country today. Leave aside, for a moment, the vanity of a man who thinks that geopolitics is no harder than selling property. Ignore his constant reminders that he wrote “The Art of the Deal”, which he falsely claims is “the number-one-selling business book of all time”. Instead, pay attention to the paranoia of his worldview. “[E]very single country that does business with us” is ripping America off, he says. “The money [China] took out of the United States is the greatest theft in the history of our country.” He is referring to the fact that Americans sometimes buy Chinese products. He blames currency manipulation by Beijing, and would slap tariffs on many imported goods. He would also, in some unspecified way, rethink how America protects allies such as South Korea and Japan, because “if we step back they will protect themselves very well. Remember when Japan used to beat China routinely in wars?”
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21663225-why-donald-dangerous-trumps-america

our future snake in the grass!

Why President Trump Would Be A Bigger Disaster Than Hillary
For conservatives, supporting Trump would mean facilitating their own destruction.
By David Harsanyi



By David Harsanyi
February 23, 2016
.addthis_toolbox.addthis_32x32_style span { border-radius:20px; }
Email


Print
























There’s still time to turn it around, of course, but now that many conservatives are moving from the bargaining to the depression phase of the Kübler-Ross cycle, we can begin to grapple with the prospective reality of a Trump-versus-Hillary general election.
If you’re an ideological conservative, a proponent of limited government, or someone who believes that the president has too much power already, you shouldn’t think of this matchup as a contest between horrifying candidates. Rather, you should ask yourself, “Which scenario would be more damaging?” I’m pretty sure you’ll find that Donald Trump is the form of the Destructor.



But Hillary is the worst, most evil, liberal ever!
Yes. You should be counting on it. Hillary, as you may have noticed, does not have the charisma of Barack Obama. Not only will she be divisive and ethically compromised, but Hillary will also galvanize the Right. Her presidency — even more now that she’s dropped the pretense of centrism — would reinforce the traditional ideological distinctions we’ve debated for years. Republicans would almost certainly unite against her agenda, which will be little more than codifying Obama’s legacy — a collection of policies that half the country still hates.
Hillary’s presidency would reinforce the traditional ideological distinctions we’ve debated for years.
She won’t be able to pass anything substantive. The most likely outcome is another four to eight years of trench warfare in D.C., with a number of winnable, state-level issues for conservatives. Probably, if historical disposition of the electorate holds, a Republican Congress. (Who knows what happens to Congress if Trump is elected.) Hardly ideal. But unless you believe that an active Washington is the best Washington, gridlock is not the end of the world.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/23/why-president-trump-would-be-a-bigger-disaster-than-hillary/

figured ide let the AIR out da hair! LOL