3 ms·

Just because the US' leadership is absent in one area does not preclude it from being present and effective somewhere else. Similarly, just because the US' lea

Just because the US' leadership is absent in one area does not preclude it from being present and effective somewhere else. Similarly, just because the US' leadership is both absent and therefore ineffective in an area does not imply that were the US' leadership present, it would still be ineffective. Certainly, per the parent comment, we have examples of the US' past leadership in this context leading to a very different outcome. We know that leadership was abdicated (and in fact, actively eviscerated) during the prior presidency.

bourgwaletariat 5y ago
It wasn't the leaders it was the followers. Or rather, those who refused to follow. No one followed up on the US leader's claim that it came from a lab. No, they said, "He said it so it's a lie!" And they continue to say that. This isn't on Trump.
- loopz 5y ago
  Your post is without any substance in it.
Ericson2314 5y ago
So first of all, I think the US-lead world order is much overhyped. Second, yes Trump accelerated some things, but deep changes that caused Trump more than they were caused by Trump have been having more effect on international relations far long. Don't forget all the same complaints about not funding the state department were made in the Bush years. Trump is a bad, don't get me wrong, but this seems like trite hawk Democrat thinking to me. It's precisely the nature of the US-led order in recent years that free trade agreements, IP laws, etc. etc. were more easily done than tackling issues of high global importance like global warming and Covid.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  I was not saying the US-lead world order isn't overhyped. I was also not saying that Trump was a solitary problem. I was not even judging Trump in my post, or making any partisan claims. I was pointing out that you're attacking a strawman in your original post (as well as the one above). The original claim was simply "US policy in the past helped prevent pandemics. Under the prior administration, that policy changed, and we got a pandemic". In response, you talked about global warming and Hitler. So I tried to explain why the logical leaps you took did not make sense.

bourgwaletariat 5y ago

It wasn't the leaders it was the followers. Or rather, those who refused to follow. No one followed up on the US leader's claim that it came from a lab. No, they said, "He said it so it's a lie!" And they continue to say that. This isn't on Trump.

loopz 5y ago
Your post is without any substance in it.

Ericson2314 5y ago

So first of all, I think the US-lead world order is much overhyped. Second, yes Trump accelerated some things, but deep changes that caused Trump more than they were caused by Trump have been having more effect on international relations far long. Don't forget all the same complaints about not funding the state department were made in the Bush years. Trump is a bad, don't get me wrong, but this seems like trite hawk Democrat thinking to me. It's precisely the nature of the US-led order in recent years that free trade agreements, IP laws, etc. etc. were more easily done than tackling issues of high global importance like global warming and Covid.

lostcolony 5y ago
I was not saying the US-lead world order isn't overhyped. I was also not saying that Trump was a solitary problem. I was not even judging Trump in my post, or making any partisan claims. I was pointing out that you're attacking a strawman in your original post (as well as the one above). The original claim was simply "US policy in the past helped prevent pandemics. Under the prior administration, that policy changed, and we got a pandemic". In response, you talked about global warming and Hitler. So I tried to explain why the logical leaps you took did not make sense.