Bloody hell! The British POV on Trump’s winning the presidency (Part II)

protest-against-donald-trumpOur British colleagues are far from done in terms of analyzing a possible Trump presidency. Check out what they think it might mean for the Middle East and the world itself.

Would Trump’s slash-and-burn promise to annihilate ISIS, topple Assad and establish “pro-Western” governments in Iran and elsewhere bring any semblance of stability to the Middle East?

  • “HA-H-AHA you must be joking! The reason we’re in this mess is because of more than 50 years of misunderstood American interventions (and a couple hundred of European colonialism) through unwanted regime change and failed state building via proxy wars which has completely destroyed the notion of any Middle Eastern stability for decades. Setting loose a useless Muslim hating billionaire with no moral compass and even less diplomatic tact or ethnic understanding would signal the end of days to the whole region and play directly into the hands of ISIS and terrorists who have more in common with Trump than the rest of Islam.”
  • “No, it would make the US the single biggest glory target in the world.  West is Best makes my blood run cold.”
  • “Are you kidding? It is the equivalent of sticking your finger in a massive hornets nest and giving it a big stir! However I would start seriously buying shares in the arms industry…”
  • “Absolutely not! Clearly he is not someone who learns from history!”

What’s your take on Trump’s desire to ban Muslims from entering the US and deporting the 11 million illegal Mexican immigrants currently residing in the US?

  • “America was built on immigrants, I’m pretty sure the Trump dynasty doesn’t descend from the Cherokee, so who’s he to ban or deport hard working families looking for a better life and do the jobs Americans don’t want? Muslims aren’t a nationality or a race, it’s not on your passport and it makes no sense even though they’re already doing it to British families who just want to go to Disneyland.”
  • “It really worries me that he is still in the running to be President following these statements –scary how so many people in the US can support this view.”
  • “It makes him a fascist – pure and simple.  Terrifying when you consider the US is a country founded on immigration.  Ironic when you consider the US is “the land of the free.” Where does it stop? When does Trump (a German-Scott) decide what is enough?  Will you set up internment camps for the ethnically undesirable, poor, disenfranchised?  I could go on, but I am depressed just writing this.”
  •  “It just can’t be serious. Please.”
  • “To use your analogy, it is a bit like trying to rehouse the Jews after the holocaust and the brilliant British came up with the idea of shoving them all into this place called Israel…well that worked well didn’t it?  I can’t imagine Mexico wants them back as their economy is deeply creaky already without an extra 11m, so maybe the US can grab some landmass somewhere and transport the 11m there. As to the Muslims…yes it does sound very like the Jewish scenario of 1936…and of course history shows that it did not stop with the Jews. In fact more Gypsies died in the camps than Jews and then of course there were the mentally ill, disabled etc.”
  • “Ridiculous in the extreme. I think Christians are just as much a threat to peace and stability!”

One thought on “Bloody hell! The British POV on Trump’s winning the presidency (Part II)

  1. Well. Trump is globally recognized as an unqualified presidential candidate. Couldn’t agree more. I would also say however, that any analogous reference to rehousing the Jews after the Holocaust, and the Jewish scenario of 1936, is questionable and even a little creepy – Zionism was a movement that began sixty years before the British “came up with the idea,” and Hitler’s concentration/extermination plans (aka mass murder) were proven to be well documented in the early 1930s. Revoking residence of illegal immigrants, and banning Muslims from entering the country, deserve outrage – BUT they are not the same issues. That said, the former (removing illegal immigrants) is a strategy long recognized in the U.S. as unfeasible and impractical across the left and right; the latter (banning a religion from U.S. entrance) is unconstitutional and illegal. So there.