It's basically the Back to the Future II world / timeline, which makes sense when you consider who Biff was based on.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-fut...
e.g. I watched American Psycho last night, in which there's some 'is that the Trumps', 'why would Ivanka Trump be here'.
E.g. that's the case for Home Alone 2, where he demanded the cameo for the use of The Plaza Hotel:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/real-reason-d...
> idolizes above all others. Bateman talks about him constantly, citing incredibly specific details of his life of luxury, and is often distracted by the thought of seeing Trump or his wife Ivana out in New York City.
2. He's taking advantage of anchoring bias: he makes a completely outrageous first offer which then makes any subsequent offer seems more reasonable, even if it was higher than you would otherwise accept. He does this all of the time, and it's a standard negotiating tactic in general, but it sometimes works well for Trump because of how people see him (see point 1).
It's also not at all obvious that the US has been more secure in its role as world police. Arguably, it led directly to 9/11 and decades of pointless death in the Middle East.
All of the arguments that the status quo was more secure and better economically are weak, at best, given the complexities of the counterfactuals.
If people conflate their current economic misfortune with a US foreign policy of encouraging global cooperation and participation, then they haven’t thought much about cause and effect.
Someone who cared to address the newfound lack of upward mobility in our society would insist on domestic policies that ensured economic surplus was explicitly invested toward the public good.
While globalization certainly has advantages that have been espoused at length, little thought has been given to their clear downsides, like decimating domestic production and the vulnerabilities inherent to distributed supply chains.
As for the "transition to a knowledge economy", this too entails similar problems. The previous trajectory was simply untenable.
If you want to see truly prosperous societies then you have to maximize peaceful international cooperation through shared democratic values. That takes educated citizenry with post-material values who will be invested in the stability and longevity of such an international system.
And they need to cooperate against authoritarian bad actors like Putin, who seek to divide and conquer.
Oh please.
But whether he's serious or not about a claim really comes down to whether someone likes it or not. Regardless, I'd argue that's a really poor way to lead.
He's also very sensitive to public opinion of him, and he knows public opinion is against military conflict. People are sick of it.
So war is the complete antithesis of everything he's ever demonstrably cared about. That's a pretty solid piece of evidence that lets you distinguish what seems reasonable, but that gets conveniently ignored by people that let their feelings about him influence their judgment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43219380
I don't like it, but I can't deny that he's made it work more often than expected. Possibly with some negative downstream effects we haven't seen yet. Time will tell.
He's threatened Panama, Denmark, and Kanada (his supposed allies) with military action.
He's stated that he would let Putin "do whatever he wants".
He's now abandoning Ukraine and doing Putins bidding (Putin who is one of the biggest warmongers and dictators in modern times).
He plans to "level Gaza" (which means genocide) so he can build luxury hotels.
Even if you take him for his words, which you shouldn't, he's a warmonger not a peace lover.
This is exactly the kind of unhinged take on Trump that drives me crazy, and I'm not even a fan. On the one hand you say he's a liar and you can't believe anything he says, but when it's convenient for you, suddenly everything he says is completely literal.
The fact of the matter is that Trump has never initiated any serious military action, and he has a deliberate and predictable tactic of making outrageous offers and threats to put people off balance to make them compliant and accept worse offers than they otherwise would have (anchoring bias). This is a standard negotiating tactic, Trump just does it bombastically like no one else.
> He's stated that he would let Putin "do whatever he wants".
The US is not the world police. Other people being warmongers doesn't make Trump a warmonger because he "lets them".
> He plans to "level Gaza" (which means genocide) so he can build luxury hotels.
No, he didn't suggest killing anyone, he explicitly said they would be relocated. That's closer to ethnic cleansing, but decidedly not genocide.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160312080447/http://europe.new...
Doonesbury and Bloom County, popular comic strips running in most newspapers, had arcs involving him, too:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160306081734/http://doonesbury...