5 ms·

Not sure I agree 9/11 was when it started. We were still cooperating with allies and other countries and still maintaining non-war stuff. Trump is when the bri

Not sure I agree 9/11 was when it started. We were still cooperating with allies and other countries and still maintaining non-war stuff. Trump is when the bridge burning started and when America really lost its stature on the world stage. If it was declining since 9/11, trump took that gradual trend and sent it straight down.

merpnderp 8y ago
Exactly the same sort of FUD was stated when Bush was president. Trump is strengthening NATO, is in the process of renegotiating several trade treaties which appear to be well received by all sides, and has made some unprecedented progress with N. Korea, while building a coalition of Arab states to counter Iran and Russia in the Middle East, plus putting pressure on Europe to lessen their dependance on Russian energy. I'm sure I'll be down voted for stating facts, but that's just the times - people hate facts.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Trump is "strengthening NATO" by telling the other members to pull their own weight, or the US will walk away. That may in fact strengthen NATO, if the other members do what Trump wants them to. If they don't, though, it could destroy NATO. My impression is that Trump is negotiating completely differently than any previous US president. He's throwing extreme positions out there as a starting point, then trying to negotiate back to something reasonable. (Much of the outrage in the press is directed at his opening statements - both content and style - not at the end position.) This approach may work, if others adjust to his style. But international diplomacy is not like business negotiations, and he may wind up alienating countries that he really needs to keep as friends.
  - bbstevecou 8y ago
    He's merely negotiating from a position of power; US has the biggest GDP of any country. and has the largest consumer market (12T) vs EU (9T). No country is stupid enough to not want access to this market - they might be upset for concessions. But to walk away? no way.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rando_supreme 8y ago
  At the risk of falling for troll bait, I'll ask anyways. What measurable metrics are you examining to come to the conclusion that Trump has had a net positive effect? Can you please point me to any primary source document in the EU parlament which outlines legislative action leading to growth in NATO? Who is our diplomatic negotiator in these talks? Do we have any commitment on any level? On the subject of trade, can you please point me to any primary source document that suggests we're getting a better deal? What exports are suffering, and how does current administration policy balance the deficit, increase the quality of life for the American people, or benefit our trading partners. Who has received the current administration's policy "well?" What tangible commitments has N Korea made towards a peace process? Sohae Satalite Launch was not used for years, and the only thing torn down was a rocket engine burn pad (trivial to setup again, but I'm not an airspace engineer. ). What new Arab state coalition exists under Trump that didn't exist under Bush or Clinton? How has Trump's summit meeting with Putin, or his actions since illustrated a clear international policy on Syria? How has the EU been forced to make any energy policy changes in the past 2 years? You've made some interesting claims, and I'd be happy to hear you support them. However, that which can be claimed without evidence will be dismissed without evidence.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    Well, France and Germany have both acknowledged their NATO spending deficits and have pledged to increase them, with France actually signing legislation and Germany saying they improve their stance (hard to say no when at the time of the NATO summit they had 0 operational fighter jets): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/08/france-germany-increase-defence-spending-amid-fears-donald-trump/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/08/france-germany-i... As for trade, negotiations are obviously ongoing, but it's only been a few week, but certainly seems to be going in a good direction: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17614564/trump-eu-trade-deal-juncker-soy-energy https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17614564/trump-eu-trade-deal-j... As for N. Korea, their latest peace negotiations have gone further than ever before. US soldier's remains have been returned, political prisoners were returned, the very first peace summit directly between a US president and a N. Korean leader, and end to missile and nuclear testing for going on a year. You can knock these, but it is hard to see how they aren't major achievements only belittled by ideology. As for the middle-east why would we not count a strengthening of a coalition, just because it existed before? I pointed out that negotiations are being made when the parent would have you believe things were getting worse instead of working plan for better. They certainly aren't "burned bridges". I didn't mention Syria for a reason. That is clearly lost to Assad and Russia. Not sure what Trump could have done differently except immediately pull out and cede the loss. And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Europe had changed their energy policy, only after the NATO and trade summits, they have agreed to take US LNG in an effort to reduce their reliance on Russian nat-gas, and at least formally acknowledged their reliance is a bad thing. Why didn't you ask the parent to source and explain their statements? What did they state which was obvious?

merpnderp 8y ago

Exactly the same sort of FUD was stated when Bush was president. Trump is strengthening NATO, is in the process of renegotiating several trade treaties which appear to be well received by all sides, and has made some unprecedented progress with N. Korea, while building a coalition of Arab states to counter Iran and Russia in the Middle East, plus putting pressure on Europe to lessen their dependance on Russian energy. I'm sure I'll be down voted for stating facts, but that's just the times - people hate facts.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Trump is "strengthening NATO" by telling the other members to pull their own weight, or the US will walk away. That may in fact strengthen NATO, if the other members do what Trump wants them to. If they don't, though, it could destroy NATO. My impression is that Trump is negotiating completely differently than any previous US president. He's throwing extreme positions out there as a starting point, then trying to negotiate back to something reasonable. (Much of the outrage in the press is directed at his opening statements - both content and style - not at the end position.) This approach may work, if others adjust to his style. But international diplomacy is not like business negotiations, and he may wind up alienating countries that he really needs to keep as friends.
- bbstevecou 8y ago
  He's merely negotiating from a position of power; US has the biggest GDP of any country. and has the largest consumer market (12T) vs EU (9T). No country is stupid enough to not want access to this market - they might be upset for concessions. But to walk away? no way.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rando_supreme 8y ago
At the risk of falling for troll bait, I'll ask anyways. What measurable metrics are you examining to come to the conclusion that Trump has had a net positive effect? Can you please point me to any primary source document in the EU parlament which outlines legislative action leading to growth in NATO? Who is our diplomatic negotiator in these talks? Do we have any commitment on any level? On the subject of trade, can you please point me to any primary source document that suggests we're getting a better deal? What exports are suffering, and how does current administration policy balance the deficit, increase the quality of life for the American people, or benefit our trading partners. Who has received the current administration's policy "well?" What tangible commitments has N Korea made towards a peace process? Sohae Satalite Launch was not used for years, and the only thing torn down was a rocket engine burn pad (trivial to setup again, but I'm not an airspace engineer. ). What new Arab state coalition exists under Trump that didn't exist under Bush or Clinton? How has Trump's summit meeting with Putin, or his actions since illustrated a clear international policy on Syria? How has the EU been forced to make any energy policy changes in the past 2 years? You've made some interesting claims, and I'd be happy to hear you support them. However, that which can be claimed without evidence will be dismissed without evidence.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  Well, France and Germany have both acknowledged their NATO spending deficits and have pledged to increase them, with France actually signing legislation and Germany saying they improve their stance (hard to say no when at the time of the NATO summit they had 0 operational fighter jets): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/08/france-germany-increase-defence-spending-amid-fears-donald-trump/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/08/france-germany-i... As for trade, negotiations are obviously ongoing, but it's only been a few week, but certainly seems to be going in a good direction: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17614564/trump-eu-trade-deal-juncker-soy-energy https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17614564/trump-eu-trade-deal-j... As for N. Korea, their latest peace negotiations have gone further than ever before. US soldier's remains have been returned, political prisoners were returned, the very first peace summit directly between a US president and a N. Korean leader, and end to missile and nuclear testing for going on a year. You can knock these, but it is hard to see how they aren't major achievements only belittled by ideology. As for the middle-east why would we not count a strengthening of a coalition, just because it existed before? I pointed out that negotiations are being made when the parent would have you believe things were getting worse instead of working plan for better. They certainly aren't "burned bridges". I didn't mention Syria for a reason. That is clearly lost to Assad and Russia. Not sure what Trump could have done differently except immediately pull out and cede the loss. And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Europe had changed their energy policy, only after the NATO and trade summits, they have agreed to take US LNG in an effort to reduce their reliance on Russian nat-gas, and at least formally acknowledged their reliance is a bad thing. Why didn't you ask the parent to source and explain their statements? What did they state which was obvious?