3 ms·
No matter who controls the US in the future, it will never go back to the position it once had globally. It's been actively harming it's allies, threatening th
by vrganj 7mo ago
No matter who controls the US in the future, it will never go back to the position it once had globally.
It's been actively harming it's allies, threatening them with invasion and conspiring with their enemies.
The rest of the world cannot afford to give the American people the benefit of the doubt.
After Trump I, there was hope it was just a fluke. Trump II is much worse and cements the unreliability of the American voting public.
- nozzlegear 7mo agoNever is a long time. Look at where Germany was after both WWI and WWII, and where it is now; it's demonstrably possible to cause irreparable damage to everyone around you, and then rise back to the top (multiple times!). The only questions are timeline and scale.
- vrganj 7mo agoGermany wasn't and isn't the world's hegemon. I don't think that position is recoverable the same way.
- nozzlegear 7mo agoIt was the hegemon of Europe though, and it is once again – at least economically. I don't know much about European culture to say how popular German pop culture is there though.
- vrganj 7mo agoThe "hegemon of Europe" was the "Franco-German engine" for the longest time. The engine has stalled though and the center of gravity is shifting East (Poland) and South (Spain, Italy). United in diversity, as is our motto.
- evilduck 7mo agoYou also have to consider the outside intervention forcibly imposed upon Germany, after being defeated in war both times, and how the first round of that contributed directly to WWII. It's not exactly a playbook to copy verbatim.
- nozzlegear 7mo agoI'm on the record that America needs a third Reconstruction era.
- stevenwoo 7mo agoGermany got a new type of government. The 2/3 required in USA for significant change will be insurmountable short of a disaster on order of second Great Depression since plurality of American voters can’t see past next paycheck, no Democrat that can win Presidential primary has any kind of revolutionary vision, it’s all muted, even Bernie got squashed by centrist voters eventually and he was not even that far to the left IMHO - he even stayed away from race or gender issues.
- nozzlegear 7mo agoHillary Clinton was to the left of Bernie Sanders in 2016, because free trade reduces global stratification and being against trade and immigration like Bernie was (and is) to protect American jobs is elitism.
- ratrace 7mo ago[dead]
- Our_Benefactors 7mo ago> Hillary Clinton was to the left of Bernie Sanders in 2016 No, this is so factually untrue as to be offensive. Hillary is a party stooge through and through, it’s why she was essentially installed as the 2016 dem candidate, in spite of voter preferences. They did Bernie dirty
- nozzlegear 7mo ago> Hillary is a party stooge through and through, it’s why she was essentially installed as the 2016 dem candidate, in spite of voter preferences. They did Bernie dirty No, this is so factually untrue as to be offensive. I caucused and volunteered for Bernie in 2016. He lost the primary vote fair and square, but he dragged himself and his supporters to the convention kicking and screaming as if there was some chance he could overcome a mathematical defeat. Superdelegates never even entered the equation. All he did was instill a conspiracy in his diehard supporters.
- 7mo ago
- rchaud 7mo agoGermany changed its constitution, banned its former ruling party, and actively explores and teaches their school kids about their crimes. The US on the other hand has a chunk of its electorate flying Confederate flags and voting for politicians who think US history textbooks should be more "pro-American".
- nozzlegear 7mo agoI'm not saying the country is perfect right now. We need a third Reconstruction.
- mrguyorama 7mo agoWe need a first reconstruction. We voted in Confederate sycophants ASAP to undo the very first, and spent the next 100 years pretending that slavery wasn't still happening. Yet again we have instead voted in people who for some reason think the literal aristocracy system of the antebellum south was anything worth protecting, despite the southern US being so dysfunctional it could barely support a war of it's own making.
- feb012025 7mo agoLook at where Germany is now? They're a total non-player on the world stage. They completely kowtow to the US. Hardly a good example
- nozzlegear 7mo ago> They're a total non-player on the world stage. It's the biggest economy in Europe and the de facto "head country" of the EU.
- bdbdbdb 7mo agoThis. We all thought Trump was a crazy accident but the fact that he almost beat Biden, and then did beat Harris, means we just can't trust Americans to put sensible people in charge. Assuming a democrat takes the office next, they will inherit an economy in tatters, a failing infrastructure and a broken strategic alliance. They'll have four years to try to fix all of that while the republicans blame them for everything they've inherited, and four years from that the American people will have largely forgotten how Trump and his minions trailed dog shit all through the house and they'll vote for the next right wing dick that's been groomed for the job - probably Pete Hegseth, or Don Jr, or Mark Wayne Mullin
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- SoftTalker 7mo agoNeither Biden nor Harris were sensible candidates. Democrats could have easily beat Trump by running a more appealing/less polarizing candidate. Didn't even have to be both. Obama was polarizing but he was appealing and he won comfortably.
- adrian_b 7mo agoAs a non-American I have always wondered about the criteria used by Americans to vote for their presidents. Clinton and Obama had various defects, but at least both of them looked like presidents and talked like presidents. On the other hand, both George Bush Junior and Trump (of course especially the latter), looked like clowns and talked like clowns. I have never understood their appeal to the masses. I understand the discontent of those who have voted against the Democrat "elites", but the fact that anyone could look at Trump and believe that he is the right man for the job seems unbelievable, regardless of how inept were his opponents.
- donkyrf 7mo agoIt's easier to understand if you live in America. Your reference to Democrat "elites" shows you have a hint of it... in this country that term never applies to a Republican -- even if they were born rich, went to Ivy League schools, and were handed a career and a professional network on a platter. It is almost _exclusively_ used to denigrate women, minorities, or men who support progressive causes.
- petre 7mo agoIf Xi put a break on China's growth, Trump surely did throw US influence and soft power straight into the bin. The only winner is China.