The Expert Podcast

It doesn't matter what your political or cultural leanings are—whether you're Republican, Democrat, Left, Right, fascist, or communist—the results of our next election are going to be tremendously impactful for many people. However, here's an opinion: it's almost certain that Donald Trump will not be president. Whether you agree with that or not, or if you have a different opinion or want that to happen or not, that's not what this is about. This is not about what should happen. This one article you see on the screen is evidence to me that it's impossible for Donald Trump to be president.

Here's why: he may have a massive amount of public support; he may actually have more votes; he may have more people that want to vote for him; he may have more popular support; it doesn't matter. When The Economist, one of the world's largest publications, says that he is the biggest danger to the world in 2024, that tells you right there that there are influential powers that do not want him to be the president. It doesn't matter if it's true or not; it doesn't matter if it's right or not; it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. It doesn't even matter if the economist really believes that he is the biggest danger; it doesn't even matter if they honestly think this is true; it's that they don't want it to happen.

It doesn't matter, even if it's correct, that he's the biggest danger. It just shows that there are powerful people who are not just of the opinion that they want somebody else to win or of the opinion that "yeah, this is our team, this is who we vote for." They look at it a different way. They say it's the biggest danger. In the past, when there have been two opposing parties, people have talked about the merits of this person having a better idea, this person's policies being more advantageous, this person's tax opinions being better, and this person's cultural views being better. That's always been the case, going back decades or hundreds of years. This is different.

This is a visceral, more deeply entrenched belief that one person is actively dangerous. The biggest danger is more dangerous than climate change, more dangerous than nuclear war, more dangerous than economic things, and more dangerous than a pandemic. The biggest danger is this person. Again, it's not about whether you agree with it or disagree with it. What I'm saying is that this isn't the only place that this is coming from. The economist isn't the only place or person who has this belief. Very high-level, important, and influential people and organizations have this message.

Because of that, it means that they will stop at nothing to keep it from happening. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, that's up to each individual person. It just means that the power is there to stop this. What's the alternative? We don't know. I don't know if they suggest an alternative. It doesn't really matter. It just matters that, against all odds, they are going to put all their massive forces and entire shoulder behind the wheel to attempt to prevent it from happening.

And when you have something that's so close to a possible election—in fact, in the article, they say how close it is; they say that a Trump victory is a coin-toss probability—they're acknowledging that it's pretty close. If you have something that's a coin toss, and then you have large influential powers, media, or personnel that are saying "biggest danger" and against it, that can tip the scale just a little bit.