"U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership"

[Quetzal]

Do you consider the US Constitution to be dated?

In regards to the EC? Yes. It is my opinion that the EC should be abolished.

 

[Akivah]

In regards to the EC? Yes. It is my opinion that the EC should be abolished.

Well, your post#67 stated that you think foreigners see our political process as being a dismal failure since the EC system decided the winner. However, the EC system is not something new. It's been the law since inception.

If foreigners think our political process is a dismal failure, then they should stay in their home countries instead of trying to come here. I certainly wouldn't want to exchange our system with anyone elses in the world.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, your post#67 stated that you think foreigners see our political process as being a dismal failure since the EC system decided the winner. However, the EC system is not something new. It's been the law since inception.

If foreigners think our political process is a dismal failure, then they should stay in their home countries instead of trying to come here. I certainly wouldn't want to exchange our system with anyone elses in the world.

Nor should you. My guess is that if Saint Hillary had won no one, no one, on that side of the aisle would be calling for an end to the EC vote. Remember, before the election, it was widely reported that Saint Hillary had the EC vote locked up and that it was virtually impossible for Trump to pull off a win... even if he got the popular vote.

 

[columbus]

My guess is that if Saint Hillary had won no one, no one, on that side of the aisle would be calling for an end to the EC vote.

You would be quite wrong.
Efforts to democratize the USA presidential election have been ongoing for many years. And will continue.
Not everyone is as partisan as some people are.
Tom

 

[Quetzal]

Well, your post#67 stated that you think foreigners see our political process as being a dismal failure since the EC system decided the winner. However, the EC system is not something new. It's been the law since inception.

Right, but that wasn't your question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not really fair to include all eligible voters to portray a detriment to Trump, because you can say the exact same thing about every president.

The difference is that the world doesn't think less of someone for voting for Obama, Reagan, Clinton, or even Bush the way that it thinks less of someone for voting for Trump.

 

[Quetzal]

Nor should you. My guess is that if Saint Hillary had won no one, no one, on that side of the aisle would be calling for an end to the EC vote. Remember, before the election, it was widely reported that Saint Hillary had the EC vote locked up and that it was virtually impossible for Trump to pull off a win... even if he got the popular vote.

It is just as easy to support an unjust system as a winner as it is to condemn one as a loser. Just something to think about.

 

[Quetzal]

You would be quite wrong.
Efforts to democratize the USA presidential election have been ongoing for many years. And will continue.
Not everyone is as partisan as some people are.
Tom

Correct, this is an issue that I have been debating about since I could vote. Others might seek to undermine the issue by pulling from recent examples but the debate doesn't, nor should it, stop there.

 

[Stevicus]

A lot of it isn't Trump himself per se. To a large extent, it's Trump's popularity with American voters that was responsible for the change in attitudes toward the US.

Trump was seen as a bigoted, sexist, blowhard and a shady businessman with a string of bankruptcies and lawsuits in his wake, running on a platform of xenophobia. I think most of the world saw him as almost a joke candidate until he started to be successful. The fact that he turned out to be actually electable has made a lot of people in other countries think less of American voters and make them question how well they actually know the American people.

That reflection started in November, if not when Trump won the Republican nomination.

Well, maybe they really don't know the American people. Even Americans at the elite level (the same ones worried so much over "image") don't really know the American people, and that's why they're ostensibly baffled by Trump's election.

A lot of American workers are tired of getting screwed by globalism, and many Americans in general are getting tired of all this interventionism and America's role as the world's policeman. If the rest of the world can't understand this, then that's on them. It's not "xenophobia" to want to stop all this global insanity that America has been a part of.

 

[Nietzsche]

It is my understanding that the member countries agreed to support NATO with a certain amount of blood and treasure, neither of which is really forthcoming.

The states most dependent on NATO pay either close-to or more than the 2% of their GDP. Poland, Estonia, Greece, the places that are either closest to Russia or are otherwise traditional American hold outs.

Germany and France don't pay 2%, but on the flip side they spend more than enough on their internal infrastructure(which keeps the NATO bases in their countries up and running) or in the case of Germany, their armaments industry is also the back-bone of all American heavy weapons. Rheinmetall in particular supplies the gun barrels for our tanks, artillery and so on.

Germany also shoulders 15% of the "common-funder" civil and military budgets, which take care of maintenance of the NATO HQs, the Integrated Command Structures and the Security Investment Programmes.

It should also be pointed out that there exists no "debt" department in NATO. Nothing even remotely like that exists.

As far as an extension of the US military, we must be talking about a different NATO. However, if this is the case then I believe that you and I can agree that NATO should be disbanded and the billions of dollars thta we bleed into the organization could be better spent here.

No. No I don't. NATO is integral to America's ability to project power over the globe. It, far more than our nuclear arsenal, is why we're still the premier super-power.

Isolationism ****ed over tens of millions the last time we decided to take our ball and go home. And it seems to be happening again because the ******* descendants of the America First Party and their Sivlershirt thugs have gotten a candidate in office.

 

[Stevicus]

No. No I don't. NATO is integral to America's ability to project power over the globe. It, far more than our nuclear arsenal, is why we're still the premier super-power.

Isolationism ****ed over tens of millions the last time we decided to take our ball and go home. And it seems to be happening again because the ******* descendants of the America First Party and their Sivlershirt thugs have gotten a candidate in office.

I'm not sure if I understand your position. In post #16, you said that NATO was merely a glorified extension of the US military and that it was "our baby" and that we cajoled many other states to join - all so we could continue to project power all over the globe. You make it seem like America is some sort of global bully imposing its will on other nations. That seems more like an "America First" position. So, if that's the case, it seems reasonable to argue that America should stop doing that and behave more responsibly among the family of nations.

But here, you're suggesting that we must continue doing this, not for America, but for the benefit of other nations. "Isolationism" (which is a misnomer) did not do anything to those tens of millions of people you mention; it was other countries which did that to them.

Interventionism (in places like Vietnam and elsewhere) has put a very large stain on America's reputation, and it has done more to damage to our image in the long run than Trump could possibly have done in the few short months he's been in office.

 

[BSM1]

"Their share"? I'm tired of this nonsense peddled by people without the first clue of what NATO is, how it was formed, and what its purpose is. There is NO rule in the NATO charter or in any NATO documentation stating that the members have to pay anything. NATO was an American invention, we were the one pushing for it, so we could have bases of operation for our armed forces in Europe. They were meant initially just to be infrastructure for the United States Armed Forces. Places to refuel, rearm, rest and redeploy our men and material. That's it.

The 2% number bandied around? That pompous dumbasses have claimed the other member-states should be paying? That wasn't a rule. It was a suggestion. Why didn't we make it a rule? We could've. We have the over-whelming majority of the power in NATO after all. But why didn't we? Because the people actually running the United States Military know that NATO does more for us than it does any other member-state. NATO provides the logistical backbone of American military might. Our Airforce in particular depends on NATO bases.


Spare me this jingoistic garbage. European forces(largely Anglo-French) played the vital role in the ground operations during the Yugoslav Wars, and that is both before and after the United Nations organized the likes of SFOR, KFOR, IFOR ad etc.

Europe is not to blame for whatever "problems" exist regarding NATO, made-up and otherwise, because we're the ones who built it, pushed for it, wrote the charter, so on and so forth. This was our baby. We cajoled numerous states to join.

You want to start fixing NATO? Then make it more than just a glorified extension of the United States Military. Because that's what it was when it was first created, and that's what it is to this day. These problems are of our own design. Trump is the first President to raise a serious fuss* about how NATO is run. Coincidentally he is also the single least-qualified individual to have ever won the office.

I wonder if those two things are somehow related.


*Obama and Bush jr both brought up they'd like to see some European members expand their responsibilities within NATO, but they never phrased it in the childish insulting manner Trump has, probably because Trump is just a tactless moron.

I'm afraid I owe you an apology. My eyes were reading NATO but my mind was screaming "UNITED NATIONS". I have no excuse for my faux pas except maybe I should not be posting that early in the morning at my advancing age (this is my story and I'm sticking to it). Please forgive any inane response I may have made to you post.

 

[BSM1]

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Haha. Get that coffee flowing!

Tomorrow for sure.

 

[BSM1]

It seems you also couldn't care less about any American business that relies on trade treaties.

Or any tourist-oriented business in a border state.

I've always wondered why conservatives all say that. I see conservatives dismiss accurate opinions because someone may not be American.

It's an anger thing

I have a thought regarding this, interested in your input. What do you think would happen if the citizens of these countries began to vote on political platforms that are against US interests due to the undiplomatic nature of Trump and the boys? Would that shift your thinking at all?

For a fictional example: "Newly elected president to Quetzal-land vows to make good on political promise to reject *super money making business deal for the US*. Here is what he had to say: 'We will no longer bow to the bully tactics and bullish tendencies of the US led my President Trump-.'" etc.

Pbbbft...like that would happen. The world is going to lust after the American dollar even if they have to hold their collective noses to do so. Also, I don't think you'll find a more business friendly president than Trump.

 

[BSM1]

Since the dissolution of the Warsaw pact, seems there is little practicality left as it applies to NATOs role and influence.

Please see my blanket apology concerning this thread. My eyes were seeing "NATO" but my brain was screaming "UNITED NATIONS". Totally my error.

 

[BSM1]

The states most dependent on NATO pay either close-to or more than the 2% of their GDP. Poland, Estonia, Greece, the places that are either closest to Russia or are otherwise traditional American hold outs.

Germany and France don't pay 2%, but on the flip side they spend more than enough on their internal infrastructure(which keeps the NATO bases in their countries up and running) or in the case of Germany, their armaments industry is also the back-bone of all American heavy weapons. Rheinmetall in particular supplies the gun barrels for our tanks, artillery and so on.

Germany also shoulders 15% of the "common-funder" civil and military budgets, which take care of maintenance of the NATO HQs, the Integrated Command Structures and the Security Investment Programmes.

It should also be pointed out that there exists no "debt" department in NATO. Nothing even remotely like that exists.


No. No I don't. NATO is integral to America's ability to project power over the globe. It, far more than our nuclear arsenal, is why we're still the premier super-power.

Isolationism ****ed over tens of millions the last time we decided to take our ball and go home. And it seems to be happening again because the ******* descendants of the America First Party and their Sivlershirt thugs have gotten a candidate in office.

Re: My apology for my inattention posted previously.

 

[Quetzal]

Pbbbft...like that would happen. The world is going to lust after the American dollar even if they have to hold their collective noses to do so. Also, I don't think you'll find a more business friendly president than Trump.

Maybe, maybe not. I suppose the US has that benefit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pbbbft...like that would happen. The world is going to lust after the American dollar even if they have to hold their collective noses to do so.

I know plenty of Canadians who would just as soon vacation in Cuba as Florida. It also doesn't take much to get a Torontonian to shop at the outlet malls in the Toronto suburbs instead of at the slightly cheaper ones in Buffalo.

Also, I don't think you'll find a more business friendly president than Trump.

Unless you're in the automotive sector in Detroit. They depend on quick and easy border crossings to get parts from suppliers in Canada.

Or unless you're in the homebuilding industry. Trump's illegal duties on Canadian lumber stand to increase the cost of a new house by more than $10,000.

Or unless you're in the solar industry.

Or unless you have employees who are citizens of one of the countries in Trump's Muslim ban.

Or unless your business exports to one of the countries that Trump is alienating.

Or unless your business is one of the many that Trump has screwed over personally.

Etc.

Etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, maybe they really don't know the American people. Even Americans at the elite level (the same ones worried so much over "image") don't really know the American people, and that's why they're ostensibly baffled by Trump's election.

A lot of American workers are tired of getting screwed by globalism, and many Americans in general are getting tired of all this interventionism and America's role as the world's policeman. If the rest of the world can't understand this, then that's on them. It's not "xenophobia" to want to stop all this global insanity that America has been a part of.

Why would someone who's worried about globalism and interventionism vote for Trump?

I'm being serious. I don't see the connection. His policies and promises don't seem to be in line with the reasons you say he was elected... not unless we're talking about an "I'm so frustrated with the status quo that I want someone to just burn the whole thing down" sort of motivation.

 

[Stevicus]

Why would someone who's worried about globalism and interventionism vote for Trump?

I'm being serious. I don't see the connection. His policies and promises don't seem to be in line with the reasons you say he was elected... not unless we're talking about an "I'm so frustrated with the status quo that I want someone to just burn the whole thing down" sort of motivation.

He ran on a platform in which he criticized free trade and globalism, which is something quite rare for a political candidate. That's what made him stand out in so many people's eyes. There was a finally candidate who actually wanted to do something for America, not someone who wanted to go along with the status quo or put the benefit of foreign nations ahead of America.

Believe it or not, there are still some people in America who believe that the top priority for a US President should be the well-being of America, not "alliances." Many would rather that the US President be the leader of America, not the "leader of the free world." There is too much suffering and misery in America for us to be concerned with the outside world. The government should make the American people its top priority.

(You could argue that Trump is GD liar and a phony, and you'd likely be correct, but I'm only exploring the reasons why people might be fed up with the status quo and vote for someone like Trump. That's what seems to be ignored in all of these discussions about Trump.)

It also has not escaped notice that many of the same people bashing Trump have been the same people who have driven America's economy and standard of living into the ground these past decades - both Democrats and Republicans. That's the real issue, as I see it. It has very little to do with Trump as much as it has to do with the disastrous way this country has been governed these past decades. If anyone of them are upset about Trump today, then (instead of making Trump the issue) they should be apologizing profusely to the American people for the incompetent and gross mismanagement which caused the conditions leading to Trump's election in the first place.

Dishonestly or not, Trump ran on a platform of "making America great again." None of the candidates said that, so voters might assume that they didn't want America to be great. None of them even bothered to ask why America isn't great anymore nor what it would take to make America great again. Because they never cared about that.

I suppose my biggest frustration in these discussions is that no one seems to be grasping any of the lessons they should be learning from this. Listening to many of these Trump-bashers, they're just assuming that the people who voted for Trump are nothing but a bunch of "bumpkins" and "hillbillies" and leave it at that. As if that's supposed to answer everything. I don't see much reasoned analysis in such arguments, so it makes me wonder if very many people truly understand what's going on in America these days and why we're heading in the direction we are.

Just as you said above, "I don't see the connection." I'm not criticizing you; your view is quite common these days. But I have to ask: Why can't you (or others) see the connection here? Why are so few people willing to take a long hard look at America, the world, and the overall situation we're facing and come to some sort of intelligent, reasoned analysis which would explain what's going on? It really shouldn't be that difficult to figure out, but people have to stop with their obsession of bashing Trump and ridiculing his supporters before their head clears up enough to be able to see.