4 ms·

> the election of Mr. Biden to the White House is not impossible As nice and warm and fuzzy it may be to believe that the Democrats regaining the White House w

by larrik 7y ago

> the election of Mr. Biden to the White House is not impossible As nice and warm and fuzzy it may be to believe that the Democrats regaining the White House would solve/help these issues, I doubt there'd be much of a difference. There weren't exactly huge top-down changes between Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama.

mschuster91 7y ago
> There weren't exactly huge top-down changes between Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. But at least neither of the four essentially tanked US international relations with allies like Trump did, by essentially dismantling American influence everywhere from the UN to long-time allies such as Europe, South Korea or the Kurds. Another four years with Trump and the once "leader of the free world" will be no leader any more.
- swamp40 7y ago
  "allies"
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    You know, those people who followed the US into Afghanistan when you invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty for the first time in history...
    - swamp40 7y ago
      Besides the US and UK, NATO deaths in Afghanistan were on par with training exercises. But that's not what the parent comment was referring to. Almost every country in the world was taking advantage of the US pre-Trump. As he renegotiates to even the playing field, he is accused of "tanking US international relations". Pure political BS and an old argument that has mostly been disproven by now.
      - mschuster91 7y ago
        > Almost every country in the world was taking advantage of the US pre-Trump Sorry what? That sounds like the Trumpian logic "If you don't pay me money, I'll retract my troops". Of course the US pays for the troops and keeping a global world order led by the US - but it gets something in return: free markets to sell goods and services to, stability (i.e. the cost of stationing troops or foreign aid is smaller than the cost that would be incurred in a war) and political influence (when other countries need help, they turn to the US, and when there is something happening that requires guidance/coordination, the other countries will follow whatever the US does). Especially the latter cannot be quantified in monetary value at all which is the reason why a pure "numbers comparison" supports what Trump and the right wing are saying is theoretically true, but has nothing to do with reality. The result of the international relations being tanked are especially evident in current times - the rest of the world does their own stuff instead of mirroring what the US is doing. Not just in regard to coronavirus, but also in terms of Russia/China trade policy, Iran policy, climate protection... this is the real, tangible influence the US has lost over time. Something like Europe devising clever workaround schemes to continue trading with Iran to evade US sanctions would have been unthinkable during the Obama terms, or the US fighting out the trade war with China on their own without Europe assisting, or all other governments except Brazil and the US cooperating with each other on the Paris Accords, with Europe actually even recruiting US governors and mayors to the cause. To add insult to injury: to fix this, to repair international relations where trust has been destroyed and eroded by Bush (lying about Iraq WMDs) and then Trump... this is going to cost a lot more money than the US could ever have saved.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Why is it so important to you that the "free world" follow the United States and by extension, one particular political party inside the United States. Why can't the "free world" be free and not need to check in with the United States for permission on everything? Is it really that important for the United States, and one particular political party inside the United States, to have control over the "free world"?
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    > Is it really that important for the United States, and one particular political party inside the United States, to have control over the "free world"? (As a German) I massively prefer a global system led by the US (or for what it's worth also the EU if we could get our fucking act together...) and a common basic value set (liberal democracy, rule of law, universal human rights) than nationalist chaos (like what the EU is sadly heading towards) or, worse, authoritarian/illiberal surveillance state systems like what China is exporting. As for the "one political party" I hope that the current administration has disintegrated this party so hard that the USA will get someone sane as president again who fixes the issues that are no longer avoidable and that the Republican Party goes down forever (many have already left the ship / been forced out by Tea Party and now QAnon types). Obviously I'd prefer Sanders but even Biden would do IMO.
    - belorn 7y ago
      I am not sure I like the idea of a global system led by a country that has been at war ever since world war 2 (arguable the cold war was not a war but that is debatable). The is a good reason why the US spend more on their military then the rest of the world combined. They are at war. Same reason why their surveillance operations operate indiscriminately against anyone they can target. They are at war. Countries in peace time operate very differently from countries in war time, and the behavior of the US is one of a country in war. EU could be better but it was original designed to create a single market in order to improve production and decrease the risk of war within EU. In order to apply that model globally you would need to make a global single market, and that concept has a lot of problems since you then need a single common standard for all production of products, services and goods, and it need to be uniformly enforced. Neither seems such as good entity to put our hopes on for a common basic value set in regard to liberal democracy, rule of law, and universal human rights. It should also be noted that the US do not agree to the EU definition of universal human rights, something that was quite talked about during bush and obama era when officials argued in favor of torture as a interrogation method. As a non-US citizen, I would like to see the US elect someone who want to end their constant wars. Trump was almost such candidate with his "american first" slogans, even if the chance of that actually happening was slim. Sanders is a new chance, as he want to redirect military funding into social safety nets and health care. Biden however, similar to clinton, has been part of the government that increased funding to the military and in his public statements there is nothing to imply that under their rule there will be finally peace time.
bayesian_horse 7y ago
There were huge top-down changes. Bush 2 got you into two endless wars. Obama got you a much better health system, even if it's still ridiculous. And you underestimate what Trump has done to the US administration. It's much worth than you think. The White House is a chaotic mess, with unprecedented turnover, a record number of smaller and bigger corruption scandals, and the rest of the administration suffers from a shortage of competent people wanting to work for Trump. It's hard to not do a better job than Trump. That includes his pathetic response to the pandemic.
- larrik 7y ago
  All 4 presidents had violent conflicts in the middle east, and Iraq in particular. In fact, the "WMD" stuff started with Clinton (though not nukes). I'm no where near a Trump supporter, and I'm very disappointed with the Democratic party seeming to fail in being able beat him in elections. Of course, I've only ever voted third party presidential candidates.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    If you talk about Saddam's WMDs ... yes, he actually used those before. It's kind of ironic that he later didn't have any. Yes, the democratic party hasn't been able to win against Trump in a presidential election since 2016. Can't be because there wasn't one, can it? On the other hand, Democrats wiped the floor in any other elections meanwhile. Biggest losses in GOP history. Huge increases in voter turnout. If that doesn't count, what else would count? And if you vote for third party candidates, you are part of the problem, not the solution. If you didn't want Trump you should have voted for Clinton, from a rational point of view. If you don't like Clinton you should examine why. In my opinion, the hatred against Clinton has more to do with the GOP campaign against her and general misogyny than anything she ever did wrong.
    - larrik 7y ago
      My state was going Clinton regardless of how I voted, so the only meaningful vote I had was for a 3rd party (which can lead to them getting funding).

by larrik 7y ago

mschuster91 7y ago

> There weren't exactly huge top-down changes between Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. But at least neither of the four essentially tanked US international relations with allies like Trump did, by essentially dismantling American influence everywhere from the UN to long-time allies such as Europe, South Korea or the Kurds. Another four years with Trump and the once "leader of the free world" will be no leader any more.

swamp40 7y ago
"allies"
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  You know, those people who followed the US into Afghanistan when you invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty for the first time in history...
  - swamp40 7y ago
    Besides the US and UK, NATO deaths in Afghanistan were on par with training exercises. But that's not what the parent comment was referring to. Almost every country in the world was taking advantage of the US pre-Trump. As he renegotiates to even the playing field, he is accused of "tanking US international relations". Pure political BS and an old argument that has mostly been disproven by now.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      > Almost every country in the world was taking advantage of the US pre-Trump Sorry what? That sounds like the Trumpian logic "If you don't pay me money, I'll retract my troops". Of course the US pays for the troops and keeping a global world order led by the US - but it gets something in return: free markets to sell goods and services to, stability (i.e. the cost of stationing troops or foreign aid is smaller than the cost that would be incurred in a war) and political influence (when other countries need help, they turn to the US, and when there is something happening that requires guidance/coordination, the other countries will follow whatever the US does). Especially the latter cannot be quantified in monetary value at all which is the reason why a pure "numbers comparison" supports what Trump and the right wing are saying is theoretically true, but has nothing to do with reality. The result of the international relations being tanked are especially evident in current times - the rest of the world does their own stuff instead of mirroring what the US is doing. Not just in regard to coronavirus, but also in terms of Russia/China trade policy, Iran policy, climate protection... this is the real, tangible influence the US has lost over time. Something like Europe devising clever workaround schemes to continue trading with Iran to evade US sanctions would have been unthinkable during the Obama terms, or the US fighting out the trade war with China on their own without Europe assisting, or all other governments except Brazil and the US cooperating with each other on the Paris Accords, with Europe actually even recruiting US governors and mayors to the cause. To add insult to injury: to fix this, to repair international relations where trust has been destroyed and eroded by Bush (lying about Iraq WMDs) and then Trump... this is going to cost a lot more money than the US could ever have saved.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Why is it so important to you that the "free world" follow the United States and by extension, one particular political party inside the United States. Why can't the "free world" be free and not need to check in with the United States for permission on everything? Is it really that important for the United States, and one particular political party inside the United States, to have control over the "free world"?
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > Is it really that important for the United States, and one particular political party inside the United States, to have control over the "free world"? (As a German) I massively prefer a global system led by the US (or for what it's worth also the EU if we could get our fucking act together...) and a common basic value set (liberal democracy, rule of law, universal human rights) than nationalist chaos (like what the EU is sadly heading towards) or, worse, authoritarian/illiberal surveillance state systems like what China is exporting. As for the "one political party" I hope that the current administration has disintegrated this party so hard that the USA will get someone sane as president again who fixes the issues that are no longer avoidable and that the Republican Party goes down forever (many have already left the ship / been forced out by Tea Party and now QAnon types). Obviously I'd prefer Sanders but even Biden would do IMO.
  - belorn 7y ago
    I am not sure I like the idea of a global system led by a country that has been at war ever since world war 2 (arguable the cold war was not a war but that is debatable). The is a good reason why the US spend more on their military then the rest of the world combined. They are at war. Same reason why their surveillance operations operate indiscriminately against anyone they can target. They are at war. Countries in peace time operate very differently from countries in war time, and the behavior of the US is one of a country in war. EU could be better but it was original designed to create a single market in order to improve production and decrease the risk of war within EU. In order to apply that model globally you would need to make a global single market, and that concept has a lot of problems since you then need a single common standard for all production of products, services and goods, and it need to be uniformly enforced. Neither seems such as good entity to put our hopes on for a common basic value set in regard to liberal democracy, rule of law, and universal human rights. It should also be noted that the US do not agree to the EU definition of universal human rights, something that was quite talked about during bush and obama era when officials argued in favor of torture as a interrogation method. As a non-US citizen, I would like to see the US elect someone who want to end their constant wars. Trump was almost such candidate with his "american first" slogans, even if the chance of that actually happening was slim. Sanders is a new chance, as he want to redirect military funding into social safety nets and health care. Biden however, similar to clinton, has been part of the government that increased funding to the military and in his public statements there is nothing to imply that under their rule there will be finally peace time.

bayesian_horse 7y ago

There were huge top-down changes. Bush 2 got you into two endless wars. Obama got you a much better health system, even if it's still ridiculous. And you underestimate what Trump has done to the US administration. It's much worth than you think. The White House is a chaotic mess, with unprecedented turnover, a record number of smaller and bigger corruption scandals, and the rest of the administration suffers from a shortage of competent people wanting to work for Trump. It's hard to not do a better job than Trump. That includes his pathetic response to the pandemic.

larrik 7y ago
All 4 presidents had violent conflicts in the middle east, and Iraq in particular. In fact, the "WMD" stuff started with Clinton (though not nukes). I'm no where near a Trump supporter, and I'm very disappointed with the Democratic party seeming to fail in being able beat him in elections. Of course, I've only ever voted third party presidential candidates.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  If you talk about Saddam's WMDs ... yes, he actually used those before. It's kind of ironic that he later didn't have any. Yes, the democratic party hasn't been able to win against Trump in a presidential election since 2016. Can't be because there wasn't one, can it? On the other hand, Democrats wiped the floor in any other elections meanwhile. Biggest losses in GOP history. Huge increases in voter turnout. If that doesn't count, what else would count? And if you vote for third party candidates, you are part of the problem, not the solution. If you didn't want Trump you should have voted for Clinton, from a rational point of view. If you don't like Clinton you should examine why. In my opinion, the hatred against Clinton has more to do with the GOP campaign against her and general misogyny than anything she ever did wrong.
  - larrik 7y ago
    My state was going Clinton regardless of how I voted, so the only meaningful vote I had was for a 3rd party (which can lead to them getting funding).