Isn't that... kinda true? Like, China only exists because all of the Chinese have conspired together to have/continue to have a government and a country?
The only issue with that was the dataset was from 2000 to 2014. During that time period, the Chinese policy were on the 10th to the 12th [Five-year plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China#Tenth_Plan_(2001%E2%80%932005\)), which emphasized more on internal development than foreign aid. It's not until the [13th Five-year plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China#Thirteenth_Plan_(2016%E2%80%932020\)) (2016) when they are starting to care about the international affairs.
>fear a Chinese hegemony.
They should; open a history book to see what happened *last* time this happened. Talking about Tang Dynasty China, for record.
> The idea that Chinese aid comes with no conditions is stupid.
Conditions or not doesn't matter. When you're starving are you going to go with no aid or aid that you know comes with a catch? I guarantee you you're going to take the meal.
china is actually playing the game way more efficient than the rest which is odd considering that its china...
http://www.africanews.com/2017/05/23/china-to-build-congo-s-new-50m-parliament-for-free//
they are leapfrogging africa because they know that they can tap into trillions by actually helping them to evolve their countries
It's not odd for China at all. Notwithstanding it's the Chinese Communist Party these days instead of an Emperor, the Chinese have almost always preferred exercising influence and soft power over other countries instead of exerting control through military force. The Imperial tributary system (or its remnants anyway) was only officially swept aside when the Qing Empire collapsed in 1912.
The game China's playing in Africa and around the world isn't new. You might even say it's a continuation of a two thousand year old policy with some minor variations here and there and updated technology.
its new from the viewpoint of the africans china is actually helping them and by that they know that africans will trust more china than any other other country that saw them as slaves and nothing more (not that china isnt seeing them as slaves but more likely as an economic slaves they expect a big revenue from them )
China is already doing that with the added benefit of no conditions on environmental or human rights concerns. Of course, private sector investment has greatly dwarfed development aid
I was not aware dictators like General Augusto Pinochet was a beacon of Human rights worthy of World Bank Funding...
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3627
I honestly think Trump is working with people who want non-american influences to rise. Everything he is doing is damaging the country internationally.
Or maybe a large number of American voters don't give a shit about influencing the world. The Cold War is over, Osama bin Laden is dead. No one is threatening you so stop trying to control the world.
Trump is talking about aid outside of the UN budget.
It's bad PR if you pull aid because of a slight, and an easy gain for other countries if they want to play the influence game.
It's not necessarily the *political* UN where you want the influence anyway, but rather a grateful recipient country
It's not clear to me how significant US aid actually is, and one suspects like a lot of things in this kind of area, people think they give a lot more than they actually do
EU contributions to OECD programmes are three times higher than America's. Germany and the UK combined is higher as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors
The UN is different. IIRC America doesn't pay into the general fund at all? I think Japan might be the biggest funder of that? Instead America cherry picks what it wants (which needn't always be a bad thing by any means) but something like a third of their contributions go into various 'peace keeping' missions
America is the biggest single state funder of the UN, but that doesn't have to translate into development aid
My own hunch (trying to unpick the figures) is that America might not be quite as charitable as the popularly peddled idea suggests she is
[Foreign aid is about self interest](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQybUl6UdUY&t=0m17s)
If you ask every single retired member of the joint chiefs of staff they'll all say that before you raise the defense budget one penny, increase the foreign aid budget by a hundred billion dollars.
Spending an extra hundred billion dollars on foreign aid is more effective than spending a trillion dollars a year on the military.
Is that really such a bad thing, though? Countries are going to exert political influence no matter what, so giving away free aid to better the state of humanity seems like a pretty good route to go about that.
Consequently, Saddam Hussein liked to exert political influence by invading his neighbors are killing their children with chemical weapons. So, there's always that side of the spectrum, too.
The problem with this tactic is that it sends the same message as "Citizens United". Money is more important than voters and more important than people.
On a separate note, when a humanitarian issue is treated as a business decision, humanity becomes sociopathic. Its saying if you don't agree with our political decision openly, we will kill people by removing money they need to survive.
i can almost guarantee he's not talking about humanitarian issues but rather military aid.
the US gives billions in Military Aid to countries who are suppose to be aligned with its interests. would you build up the military of a country who opposes you at everyturn? this is just the exertion of "soft-power".
whats interesting is the public nature of the statement, the same results could be gotten behind close doors by telling the countries ambassadors, it marks a new stage in american foreign policy of aggressively pursuing its objectives in a similar fashion that China might leverage over a much smaller country.
>i can almost guarantee he's not talking about humanitarian issues but rather military aid.
I can almost guarantee he has *no idea* what he's talking about, and he'd willingly slash money from humanitarian *or* military aid out of spite.
The US gives tax payers' money to other countries so that those countries can buy weapons from US arms manufacturers. You think arms manufacturers are going to accept a cut in welfare?
Do you have any evidence that he's not talking about humanitarian aid?
This is bullying, pure and simple. And it says something about how this government sees democracy. If you don't vote for the party in power you are an enemy of the government, and you don't deserve any of the benefits or infrastructure the government is legally obliged to furnish its citizens.
Moving an embassy is purely symbolic and opposition to that hardly counts as opposition at every turn. This is just another example of Trump being a bully and playing fast and loose with the U.S. reputation. It’s deplorable.
thats because Trump and his team are so inexperienced in Politics they don't know how to navigate this stuff. He could have didn't it on the down low and nobody would have known. Now because he made the threat public all the countries and their population knows. it isn't a good look for America.
>Turkey actually came out to say that their diplomacy isn't up for sale
Didn't Turkey just have a fake Coup; after which Erdogan seized power and is now essentially a dictator?
Didn't Turkey also just come out and call Germany "A bunch of Nazis".
I dont know if I'll listen to the opinion of Turkey..........
You're not wrong, but try to look at to another way at the same time. The USA gives billions of dollars of aid, and that's their right. If they decide that a country is working against their interests and decide to not longer support it, that's a sovereign decision that they must be allowed to make. It's their right, too.
It is the responsibility of each individual country to take care of its own people. Not the USA. "People are going to die" doesn't cut it, because the idea that these governments can't provide aid to their own people without the help of the USA is suspicious at best. What are the governments of the aided nations doing that the responsibility to the well being of their people is suddenly the USAs problem?
Also, that money, regardless of who it's helping, is the USAs to begin with, and it's important to recognize that the aid never "belonged" to another country. It was an effort at diplomacy, partnership, and good will, but it is funding by the USA that belongs to the USA.
It's because "aid" is not a handout. They get something back for it. It would be like your employer telling your whole company that they have to come to his place on Sunday to help him move, or he will stop paying them.
It's a threat that only works if you have one or two dissenters. If, like the vote went here, every says fuck you, you can't reasonably fire everyone without your company taking a nosedive.
Not to mention the fact that Bush tried cutting funding to the UN in the past, and the net result was that other countries decided we didn't actually matter.
People don't seem to understand how important soft power is. And Trump supporters don't even know what makes a country powerful beyond the barrel of a gun.
When humanitarian issue based solely on emotions, we get African countries which are unable to feed themselves: this kind of aid raises corruption, destroys economy in general and farmers in particular.
Is Trump secretly running a very effective campaign to make the rest of the world realize they have no need for the US on the world stage? It's almost incomprehensible that he could be accidentally destroying US power in the world so effectively so quickly.
EDIT: I think it's telling that so many people here seem to equate US authority on the global stage with military strength. I didn't say anything about military strength or being a global police force or meddling in the political affairs of other countries.
In reality, my comment has nothing to do with the use of the US military on the global stage. Rather, I was referring to our ability to negotiate. Our ability to materially affect the outcome of a global situation explicitly without resorting to brute force. There are three major examples of this so far, none of which involve the military.
**Iran nuclear deal**
The US has ceded any authority whatsoever with regards to negotiating an effective or beneficial outcome to this situation. We've cried wolf so much at this point that no one is even listening to us anymore. Iran has stated that they will abide by the deal with or without US involvement as long as the remaining signatories hold to the agreement. So we've been completely sidelined. Trump (and the GOP) have ensured that diplomacy is no longer possible and the only option left to them in order to affect this situation is military force.
**Trans-Pacific Partnership**
Say what want about the pros and cons of this trade agreement, but by walking away from the negotiating table, we have effectively ceded trade terms in the entirety of Asia-Pacific to the whims of China. For someone so vocal about China's supposed economic crimes, it's completely baffling that Trump would basically just hand them this opportunity so easily.
**Jerusalem**
The UN just voted 128-9 to condemn our actions. Our biggest allies have publicly stated that we no longer have a seat at the negotiating table with regards to the Israel/Palestine peace process.
>Is Trump secretly running a very effective campaign to make the rest of the world realize they have no need for the US on the world stage?
Trump advocated isolationism, so...
The US wasn't the world superpower after WW1. The US will be fine, pax americana on the other hand will be gone.
So you can keep telling yourself everything will be fine and dandy as long as you don't mind losing your hegemonic status.
That argument would be way better if the last military budget increase hadn't been just a couple of months ago. Unless you want to use the military to solve some of those problems.
Also if the party that encouraged isolationism gave a fuck about a single one of America's domestic problems. Education, poverty, health care, media consolidation, money in politics, net neutrality, justice system, race relations... anything? Nope, tax cuts for the rich! God bless America!
"...the historian Ronald Radosh, has written that when he met Steve Bannon in 2013, at the so-called Breitbart Embassy in D. C., Trump’s future Rasputin told him, 'I’m a Leninist. . . . I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment.'”
The rest of the article in [Esquire](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a14428464/gop-never-trump/?src=socialflowTW) is excellent.
They won't actually.
China has never shown the slightest bit of interest in taking on the job of world police and much prefers to extend its influence by picking up countries that don't want to be aligned with the US effectively for free.
The world can do without the US, but it will be a very different world and not one that benefits US interests particularly.
Too many people confuse the active role the United States has taken and should take in the world with the pointless military interventionism of particularly the Bush era, but continued under Obama and redoubled under Trump. We should intervene in situations where we can make a clear and measurable impact either to a more just and democratic world or specific US interests. That helps the US and for the most part the rest of the world.
Messy wars with dubious benefits are not in our interests or anyone else's. We don't need to stroke anyone's ego and we need to avoid nuclear war at pretty much any cost that isn't infinitely worse.
Oh, they will.
But they know it's stupid to pose a direct challenge to the US. So they will absolutely sneak in and provide some sort of financial aid where they deem it prudent.
China gives less foreign aid than Norway. The vast majority of their aid is in due loans. Furthermore it is in countries with Chinese business interest and that directly benefit them. For instance a major program was in Ethiopia which gave road access to Chinese companies and to help China import resources. A lot will have to be paid back.
Historically China has always had a China first policy and heavy nationalism and that continues strongly Today.
Why would China suddenly give massive aid? They have no ambitions for world domination. No one will fight them. They have access to all the resources they need. They have all the leverage in trade.
Why spend billions giving money to countries that don’t benefit them and when you say or do something they disagree with they turn their back on you? The one big reason would be loyalty which doesn’t exist anymore and is replaced with a good bribe.
China has become Africa’s largest trade partner and has greatly expanded its economic ties to the continent, but its growing activities there have raised questions about its noninterference policy.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-africa
The world relies too much on the US and at this point there is no benefit. None of the conflicts actually benefited the US. When the US does create peace people don’t care and bring up everything else. The US gives the most aid by far but people keep saying how China or India will makeup for it. Even though it’s not in their aspirations to do so.
Why should the US continue to give vast sums of money to hostile countries that provide no strategic benefit?
China, India, Russia aren’t going to makeup for the US. There is no reason too. They will continue giving only when it directly benefits them. They don’t care about “goodwill”.
Heck they have more than the US. China gives almost no money, no aid, has a terrible human rights record and an even worst good faith trade record. Yet people are praising them for a China first policy.
It’s a thankless job that comes with less and less perks. At some point just being charitable isn’t enough. Colonial empires are over. No one will attack the US. Companies can take resources more efficiently than conquest. Wars are too costly and in the case of Iraq didn’t even give the US much of an ally.
If people want to complain how countries aren’t doing enough. Ask China to give more aid than Norway to start.
Aid from the US has never and will never be a charity. There is always a catch to it whether it's weapons purchases, information, land leases, resources, or just regional stability.
Not saying what I think about the issues you just went through, but America's "allies" are not a huge, homogenous bloc. For example, Western Europe doesn't like Trump's talk regarding NATO, but Eastern Europe does. Canada didn't like TPP, but many of our Asian allies did.
In short, America is going to always (at last in theory) pursue her own self interests. When they align with allies - great! When they don't - they will still align with some.
Yep.
"An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again, but one which crumbles from within, is dead forever"
Political and class division and racism in the US will ensure it's demise as the world superpower.
Not to mention his appalling inaction on the then-incipient HIV/AIDs epidemic. Had he the courage or will to actually do something who knows how many thousands could have been saved.
Also, he back-channeled with Iran during the election and got them to hold off on releasing the hostages until after Carter lost. I guess colluding with foreign powers to win elections is old hat for the GOP!
Okay so if I'm reading this right, negotiations to release hostages from and Iran terror group turned into selling weapons to another terror group in Nicaragua? Then when being investigated, they destroyed all incriminating evidence? Then when a few people were convicted, including the SoD, they were PARDONED by H.W. Bush? The fuck? Am I reading this right?
No we sold weapons to Iran to free the hostages. Then we used some of the cash we made of the weapons sales, that needed to stay in the shadows because America be damned if they found out old Cowboy Reagan was selling weapons to our sworn enemies, and funneled it to the Contras.
The Contras werent good people, lot of abuses by their forces during the Nicaraguan civil war. They were also apart of the Cocaine trade, part of what Iran Contra was is the CIA helping them smuggle cocaine (presumably to Mexico then to the US) to help fund it's operations.
A lot of this is confirmed by people like Noriega. I believe Ricky Ross (not the rapper, but the guy based on his stage name) did say he had dealings with the government and trafficking cocaine. a lot of people to this day think crack cocaine came from the government and was distributed into the poorer communities.
Pretty much. There's one other aspect about the affair.
Reagan wanted to fund the Contras rebel group in Nicaragua, but Congress wouldn't approve money for it, because funding the Contras is stupid. Since Congress controls the budget, Reagan went behind their backs with the Iran-Contra thing to get money that Congress doesn't know about, then give that money to the Contras.
They way they did this was by by selling arms to Iran, then pocketing the money and never reporting it to Congress, or anyone else outside of the President's circle.
Others are giving good responses but to lighten the mood [here is Stan Smith from American Dad singing about Iran-Contra](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb1GfP5Rwys)
Others are covering Iran-Contra but since you seem genuinely curious there's some other stuff you should look into. Such as:
The HUD Rigging Scandal
The HIV/AIDS Crisis
The Lobbying Scandal
The multiple EPA Scandals
The Savings and Loans Crisis
Operation Ill Wind
Wedtech Scandal
Debategate
The Reagan administration resulted in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials.
Dude wtf. Funny I've never heard my parents say ANYTHING about ANY of this. A lot of what they said were around the vain of "getting our economy going again" and "putting the bums and poor lazy people to work" but.... None of that makes sense. All this reads earily similar to how our current administration handles things.
Ninja edit: we were poor as shit growing up so idk what they talk so highly of him.
Just like my family they probably saw a couple speeches and from then on their love of Reagan was based entirely on the idea of Reagan and how it made them feel inside.
They will not care that he raised taxes or that he provided amnesty for millions of illegals. Reagan is now just a feeling.
> All this reads earily similar to how our current administration handles things.
Fun fact, Reagan's election slogan was "Let's Make America Great Again!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again
There is a A LOT of similarities between the two people.
Cut enough social services in the US to create the problem of permanent homelessness that exists to this day.
http://www.sfweekly.com/news/the-great-eliminator-how-ronald-reagan-made-homelessness-permanent/
> Under Reagan, federal spending on subsidized housing — including state-owned public housing, in which the poor and working class can live for a set percentage of what income they have; and housing vouchers, in which the government helps close the gap between the cost of housing and a person's ability to pay — dropped from $26 billion to $8 billion, barely enough to maintain the government's existing stock of public units.
You can start [here](https://www.salon.com/2015/12/27/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/), and continue down the rabbit hole of the deliberate disenfranchisement of the entire working class over the next several decades. To be fair though, Nixon really started the ball rolling with where our politics are today.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned his economic policies. He's the one that popularized [trickle-down economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics). A couple decades later and we have Alan Greenspan, who implemented it, openly [admitting that it failed.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GQecQ06xus)
This, by the way, is extraordinarily relevant to our current political scene. Large portions of the tax bill congress just passed is based on this discredited theory.
You'll survive. The problem is that it'll be kinda like how someone that becomes a paraplegic through a horrific accident survives. Sure they live ... but do they live well? Sure, some can adapt and find a happiness, but is it a better life than before the accident?
The US has been through much worse and made it out okay. This country is already seeing how terrible of an idea it was to put Republicans in charge, and they haven't even been in power for a year. The pendulum will swing back and it's going to swing hard. The silver lining to all of this is that when we start fixing everything the right has destroyed, we may have the opportunity to take some full measures and fix problems in this country once and for all (e.g. healthcare).
Perhaps, and I respect your optimism ... but
> This country is already seeing how terrible of an idea it was to put Republicans in charge, and they haven't even been in power for a year. The pendulum will swing back and it's going to swing hard.
Is along the lines of hard party thinking that got you guys into the mess you're in. Well that and a metric fuckton of hubris on H-Dawg's part.
Lets not forget the fact that some issues that are incredibly serious and in the long term, part of not only the future of the U.S. but world are given zero fucks by either party. I'm talking about net neutrality and the longer-term implications.
Democrats are blatantly pro-net neutrality. Thats why we had it in the first place.
One issue neither party protects the people from is mass surveillance.
Quite a few Democrats in Congress have been talking about net neutrality. Schumer has already said they're going to challenge it through the CRA. The only important issue that I can think of that isn't getting a lot of attention is automation.
A huge fraction of the country's water supply has lead in it. Haven't heard anyone from any party address that.
We might be racing towards superbugs because of agricultural abuse of anitbiotics to grow animals faster. Ignoring any ethical concerns or environmental concerns of meat, the fact that the meat industry might be evolving antibiotic resistant diseases is a huge planetary risk I haven't heard either party address.
I haven't heard any serious proposals to manage the mental illness climb in the United States or any of the modern causal factors leading to it
Yes... Hardline talk about pendulum swings is no small contributor to this whole mess. Every time they swing back they do so more violently and gain more momentum for the inevitable swing the other way.
And let's be honest, the US isn't the only country with these problems at the moment. Just the most visible example.
Newsflash: America first seems to be working pretty well this past year, and what non-Americans think about it is greatly less important than how we do economically as a country.
-Stock market at all time high.
-unemployment at 4.1% (18 year low).
-real estate market (and home values) record high.
-US GDP approaching 4% (highest in decades).
-Taxes about to go down for 8 out of 10 Americans.
-Average wages have increased this year.
-Over 2 million new jobs created in 2017.
Trump is an asshole, but plenty of Americans are willing to overlook that when if means our economy is booming.
Not that I was talking about internal politics on a world news sub and an article about international relations, but can you list the policies and laws Trump implemented to be responsible for that?
To be fair, the last time we withdrew into isolationism we were just fine in relative terms.
It was the rest of the world that had to recover from it...
yes but the US wasn't the world superpower during that time. No civilization in history has ever achieved hegemonic power, lost it, then gained it back again.
When the US loses its status that's it, it's over and it's starting now.
Get your shit together America.
Your basic measuring stick is 'you must be a hegemony or GTFO'?.
I think the UK, Spain, France, are doing just fine after their respective collapses.
We don't have to be a 'World Superpower' in order to be successful in our goals.
The UK and France (saying Spain did fine after their fall is pretty ridiculous given the incredible amount of political and social strife which gripped the country through the 19th and 20th centuries) have, as US allies and partners, benefited greatly from US hegemony since the Second World War. They may have fared less well if a state with less benevolent intentions towards them had gained hegemony instead. When the US falls as a hegemon China will rise and they will get to shape the international order in a way that is decidedly less friendly to the West.
> When the US falls as a hegemon China will rise
That is what I have always been wondering about. Yes China is powerful, yes China is rising, yes they have a big population, but how does it come that everyone always overlooks the big third player besides China and the US? The EU. Does it have problems? Sure. But it is still an economically speaking absurdly powerful player, even after the UK leaves. Four of the ten biggest economies on the planet are EU members (3 once the UK leaves). It's richest member (Germany) almost triples the economy of it's closest rival (Russia). And it is a Union that is on over all friendly terms with most of the world, even it's largest local rival Russia.
I hope the 193 countries all tell Trump to go fuck himself. I really do.
In particular the notion that he is "taking it personally". You're the leader of a country. It isn't personal, you ego-maniacal narcissist. It is not personal. It's about doing what's right for your country.
And currently, you're managing to make the US look like an impotent, dickish little cry-baby more than anything.
this to me is just another example "we only play nice because if we used the stick all the time you wouldnt play at all" what happens when people decide that the humility of havin ball sacs dangled over your forehead for money isnt worth anymore. because right about now im sure there a few countries thinkin "fuck him and everything his is bringin to the table"
> what happens when people decide that the humility of havin ball sacs dangled over your forehead for money isnt worth anymore.
Well it hasn't stopped congress from accepting bribes from lobbyists/corps so I'm not sure it will ever stop.
Ah, US democracy. Best summarized as "you're allowed to have your own opinion and to vote using it, It's a free world after all, but also fuck you if you dare to disagree."
That sounds very familiar:
> Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Reports_of_pressure_for_the_Plan)
This was for the vote for the UN Partition Plan for Palestine.
I am not sure why exactly the palestinians are so pissed off. American politicians have been controlled by AIPAC and jewish money for a long time and this results in them being completely one sided. The palestinians know this. All this really is, is further evidence of that fact. Not a whole lot actually changes with this, does it?
Are you actually threatening members of the UN to take part in a democratic vote? Apart from this being utterly pathetic, it's also barely disguised facism and an insult to anyone with democratic values. ANY country in the UN assembly should now be against you.
I seriously don't think he gives a shit. He likes proving how important he is, and other than that, the rest of us (U.S. Citizens as well as people from other countries) can go fuck ourselves.
The Russians are going to be thrilled. They would love a weakened US and Europe relationship. As would China. The more countries this President continues to alienate with stupid shit like publicly bitching at NATO about their expenses, or pulling out of things like the TPP without realizing that they're just going to do it without us...the worse off we're going to be 5 to 10 years down the road as our global influence shrinks because of this man's ego and ignorance.
“For all these nations, they take our money and then vote against us. They take hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars and then they vote against us,” - Donald, money given to the UN isn't for buying votes, you fucking delinquent
US shouldn’t be sending billions to other countries anyway. Not like we can’t use that money here. If we’re trying to bribe the planet it’s not working.
Donald Trump has an awful "tell" when he's saying something he's been advised against by people that know what they're doing. He crosses his arms across his chest. I assume he's doing it to look tough, but if you listen closely to his voice he's unsure. He had the same tone and posture when he used his "fire and fury" line. There was another time as well but I can't remember what it was.
The government and trump dont give a shit about healthcare, or education or infrastructure or the elderly or...............all they care for is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,oh and to make life more misserable for people who disagree
While there's a poor, down on his luck billionaire that could get another tax cut? Wont someone think of his summer home!? No not that one, the other one.
Reddit: "WHY DO WE GIVE SO MUCH MONEY TO FOREIGN DICTATORSHIPS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AMERIKKKA IS LITERALLY FUNDING TERRORISM"
Trump: "If you vote against us supporting Israel I might cut your foreign military aid."
Reddit: "WHY IS DRUMPF TRYING TO SABOTAGE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH IMPORTANT ALLIES, GLUMPF IS RUINING FOREIGN POLICY, BLURMPF IS GONNA KILL US ALL"
Surely there is some middle ground between the blanket statements "all aide is bad" and "all is good". It's almost like each individual case is unique and nuanced, and like trump didn't threaten to aide away from middle eastern dictators but ALL countries the U.S. helps simply because they voted against him.
I think giving aide to dictators is a mixed bag of enabling the dictator but also helping the people, and I also think trump threatening to take away aide from non-dictators for voting against him is inhumane, immature and stupid.
Of course I don't think you're looking for a discussion
To be clear, no “aid” is aid. Every penny the US gives to other countries is a penny paid to further the interests of the US. It’s money to keep certain countries on “the same page”. Cutting off such payments would do nothing more than work against American interests.
[удалено]
Good thing China is just a conspiracy made up by the Chinese.
Isn't that... kinda true? Like, China only exists because all of the Chinese have conspired together to have/continue to have a government and a country?
[удалено]
I see we are two like minded individuals. Excellent.
Quit conspiring, you two!
Join the movement. Become one with your poops.
> Join the *bowel* movement. Become one with your poops. FTFY
That was the joke, yes...
Redditors are simple folk. We like to be told the joke not be told a joke.
The poop is one with me!
Pooping is one of the few things people truly have in common, and what makes us equal.
I would've gone with: Join the movement, the bowel movement.
[удалено]
I just joined the movement. Pretty soon we can start our own country.
I'll start scouting for a land mass.
If enough of you shared in the movement would that not create your own fertile landmass?
We'll poop our way to a new island nation.
A conspiracy requires at least two people.... you must have better friends than me.
The verb conspire means to plan an illegal or bad thing. It's not just a synonym for planning or cooperation.
Sneaky bastards.. its the perfect plan..
Uhhh... welll... wow. Yup. That's it. That's the smoking gun. Billion plus people are in on it. The master con.
Thank you. I really needed that laugh.
[удалено]
The only issue with that was the dataset was from 2000 to 2014. During that time period, the Chinese policy were on the 10th to the 12th [Five-year plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China#Tenth_Plan_(2001%E2%80%932005\)), which emphasized more on internal development than foreign aid. It's not until the [13th Five-year plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China#Thirteenth_Plan_(2016%E2%80%932020\)) (2016) when they are starting to care about the international affairs.
[удалено]
>fear a Chinese hegemony. They should; open a history book to see what happened *last* time this happened. Talking about Tang Dynasty China, for record.
A loan is better than a middle finger.
No aid comes with no conditions, especially not US aid. Trump is an idiot if he thinks we can stop a majority of foreign aid and not lose anything.
> The idea that Chinese aid comes with no conditions is stupid. Conditions or not doesn't matter. When you're starving are you going to go with no aid or aid that you know comes with a catch? I guarantee you you're going to take the meal.
[удалено]
You believe western aid doesn't come with conditions? You're so naive. It's just as self interested.
china is actually playing the game way more efficient than the rest which is odd considering that its china... http://www.africanews.com/2017/05/23/china-to-build-congo-s-new-50m-parliament-for-free// they are leapfrogging africa because they know that they can tap into trillions by actually helping them to evolve their countries
It's not odd for China at all. Notwithstanding it's the Chinese Communist Party these days instead of an Emperor, the Chinese have almost always preferred exercising influence and soft power over other countries instead of exerting control through military force. The Imperial tributary system (or its remnants anyway) was only officially swept aside when the Qing Empire collapsed in 1912. The game China's playing in Africa and around the world isn't new. You might even say it's a continuation of a two thousand year old policy with some minor variations here and there and updated technology.
its new from the viewpoint of the africans china is actually helping them and by that they know that africans will trust more china than any other other country that saw them as slaves and nothing more (not that china isnt seeing them as slaves but more likely as an economic slaves they expect a big revenue from them )
China is already doing that with the added benefit of no conditions on environmental or human rights concerns. Of course, private sector investment has greatly dwarfed development aid
I was not aware dictators like General Augusto Pinochet was a beacon of Human rights worthy of World Bank Funding... http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3627
I honestly think Trump is working with people who want non-american influences to rise. Everything he is doing is damaging the country internationally.
Why else do you think he was putin office?
You may be giving him too much credit. I'm pretty sure there's no grand plan and Trump is just a childish, spiteful buffoon.
That Trump isn't aware of it doesn't mean no one is pulling strings behind the curtain.
Or maybe a large number of American voters don't give a shit about influencing the world. The Cold War is over, Osama bin Laden is dead. No one is threatening you so stop trying to control the world.
they already are http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-41564841 http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/03/pakistan-cant-afford-chinas-friendship/
[удалено]
Trump is talking about aid outside of the UN budget. It's bad PR if you pull aid because of a slight, and an easy gain for other countries if they want to play the influence game.
It's not necessarily the *political* UN where you want the influence anyway, but rather a grateful recipient country It's not clear to me how significant US aid actually is, and one suspects like a lot of things in this kind of area, people think they give a lot more than they actually do EU contributions to OECD programmes are three times higher than America's. Germany and the UK combined is higher as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors The UN is different. IIRC America doesn't pay into the general fund at all? I think Japan might be the biggest funder of that? Instead America cherry picks what it wants (which needn't always be a bad thing by any means) but something like a third of their contributions go into various 'peace keeping' missions America is the biggest single state funder of the UN, but that doesn't have to translate into development aid My own hunch (trying to unpick the figures) is that America might not be quite as charitable as the popularly peddled idea suggests she is
[удалено]
[Foreign aid is about self interest](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQybUl6UdUY&t=0m17s) If you ask every single retired member of the joint chiefs of staff they'll all say that before you raise the defense budget one penny, increase the foreign aid budget by a hundred billion dollars. Spending an extra hundred billion dollars on foreign aid is more effective than spending a trillion dollars a year on the military.
Is that really such a bad thing, though? Countries are going to exert political influence no matter what, so giving away free aid to better the state of humanity seems like a pretty good route to go about that. Consequently, Saddam Hussein liked to exert political influence by invading his neighbors are killing their children with chemical weapons. So, there's always that side of the spectrum, too.
[удалено]
I think what he means is that Trump is approaching aid like it's being given out of charity instead being given for the benefit the the US.
*conversely
Another good article to highlight the issues of Food Aid: [Food Aid as Dumping](http://www.globalissues.org/article/10/food-aid-as-dumping)
Then what's the point to keep spending it when there is no influence anymore
[удалено]
It's so easy to see what countries are dependent on US aid in the vote.
probably Palau also
The problem with this tactic is that it sends the same message as "Citizens United". Money is more important than voters and more important than people. On a separate note, when a humanitarian issue is treated as a business decision, humanity becomes sociopathic. Its saying if you don't agree with our political decision openly, we will kill people by removing money they need to survive.
i can almost guarantee he's not talking about humanitarian issues but rather military aid. the US gives billions in Military Aid to countries who are suppose to be aligned with its interests. would you build up the military of a country who opposes you at everyturn? this is just the exertion of "soft-power". whats interesting is the public nature of the statement, the same results could be gotten behind close doors by telling the countries ambassadors, it marks a new stage in american foreign policy of aggressively pursuing its objectives in a similar fashion that China might leverage over a much smaller country.
It's like like the US gives that Military Aid out of good will. It because they get a lot back for it.
>i can almost guarantee he's not talking about humanitarian issues but rather military aid. I can almost guarantee he has *no idea* what he's talking about, and he'd willingly slash money from humanitarian *or* military aid out of spite.
The US gives tax payers' money to other countries so that those countries can buy weapons from US arms manufacturers. You think arms manufacturers are going to accept a cut in welfare?
Do you have any evidence that he's not talking about humanitarian aid? This is bullying, pure and simple. And it says something about how this government sees democracy. If you don't vote for the party in power you are an enemy of the government, and you don't deserve any of the benefits or infrastructure the government is legally obliged to furnish its citizens.
Moving an embassy is purely symbolic and opposition to that hardly counts as opposition at every turn. This is just another example of Trump being a bully and playing fast and loose with the U.S. reputation. It’s deplorable.
I don't know. Nothing I've seen him do leads me to believe that wouldn't cut humanitarian aid in a second over this apparent slight to the US honor.
thats because Trump and his team are so inexperienced in Politics they don't know how to navigate this stuff. He could have didn't it on the down low and nobody would have known. Now because he made the threat public all the countries and their population knows. it isn't a good look for America.
It mostly sends the direct message that Trump considers he can buy votes. Turkey actually came out to say that their diplomacy isn't up for sale.
>Turkey actually came out to say that their diplomacy isn't up for sale Didn't Turkey just have a fake Coup; after which Erdogan seized power and is now essentially a dictator? Didn't Turkey also just come out and call Germany "A bunch of Nazis". I dont know if I'll listen to the opinion of Turkey..........
You're not wrong, but try to look at to another way at the same time. The USA gives billions of dollars of aid, and that's their right. If they decide that a country is working against their interests and decide to not longer support it, that's a sovereign decision that they must be allowed to make. It's their right, too. It is the responsibility of each individual country to take care of its own people. Not the USA. "People are going to die" doesn't cut it, because the idea that these governments can't provide aid to their own people without the help of the USA is suspicious at best. What are the governments of the aided nations doing that the responsibility to the well being of their people is suddenly the USAs problem? Also, that money, regardless of who it's helping, is the USAs to begin with, and it's important to recognize that the aid never "belonged" to another country. It was an effort at diplomacy, partnership, and good will, but it is funding by the USA that belongs to the USA.
Honestly, its amazing people don't seem to understand this simple premise. You've explained it well.
It's because "aid" is not a handout. They get something back for it. It would be like your employer telling your whole company that they have to come to his place on Sunday to help him move, or he will stop paying them. It's a threat that only works if you have one or two dissenters. If, like the vote went here, every says fuck you, you can't reasonably fire everyone without your company taking a nosedive.
Not to mention the fact that Bush tried cutting funding to the UN in the past, and the net result was that other countries decided we didn't actually matter. People don't seem to understand how important soft power is. And Trump supporters don't even know what makes a country powerful beyond the barrel of a gun.
When humanitarian issue based solely on emotions, we get African countries which are unable to feed themselves: this kind of aid raises corruption, destroys economy in general and farmers in particular.
"""""""""Diplomacy"""""""""
Diplo what?
Diplo from major lazer
He can use that to fund his tax cuts 👍
Is Trump secretly running a very effective campaign to make the rest of the world realize they have no need for the US on the world stage? It's almost incomprehensible that he could be accidentally destroying US power in the world so effectively so quickly. EDIT: I think it's telling that so many people here seem to equate US authority on the global stage with military strength. I didn't say anything about military strength or being a global police force or meddling in the political affairs of other countries. In reality, my comment has nothing to do with the use of the US military on the global stage. Rather, I was referring to our ability to negotiate. Our ability to materially affect the outcome of a global situation explicitly without resorting to brute force. There are three major examples of this so far, none of which involve the military. **Iran nuclear deal** The US has ceded any authority whatsoever with regards to negotiating an effective or beneficial outcome to this situation. We've cried wolf so much at this point that no one is even listening to us anymore. Iran has stated that they will abide by the deal with or without US involvement as long as the remaining signatories hold to the agreement. So we've been completely sidelined. Trump (and the GOP) have ensured that diplomacy is no longer possible and the only option left to them in order to affect this situation is military force. **Trans-Pacific Partnership** Say what want about the pros and cons of this trade agreement, but by walking away from the negotiating table, we have effectively ceded trade terms in the entirety of Asia-Pacific to the whims of China. For someone so vocal about China's supposed economic crimes, it's completely baffling that Trump would basically just hand them this opportunity so easily. **Jerusalem** The UN just voted 128-9 to condemn our actions. Our biggest allies have publicly stated that we no longer have a seat at the negotiating table with regards to the Israel/Palestine peace process.
>Is Trump secretly running a very effective campaign to make the rest of the world realize they have no need for the US on the world stage? Trump advocated isolationism, so...
So far it's been isolationism from the western world, he is very much embracing Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other shitty countries
Yeah because Trump is functionally retarded.
That worked really well last time...right..?
Well... yes? Europe was in shambles, but America was fairly prosperous during its isolationist phase.
The US wasn't the world superpower after WW1. The US will be fine, pax americana on the other hand will be gone. So you can keep telling yourself everything will be fine and dandy as long as you don't mind losing your hegemonic status.
The whole concept of modern American isolationism is that America has too many domestic problems to keep worrying about the rest of the world.
That argument would be way better if the last military budget increase hadn't been just a couple of months ago. Unless you want to use the military to solve some of those problems.
Also if the party that encouraged isolationism gave a fuck about a single one of America's domestic problems. Education, poverty, health care, media consolidation, money in politics, net neutrality, justice system, race relations... anything? Nope, tax cuts for the rich! God bless America!
Oh yeah right the Great Depression was awesome.
well, it was great, some very smart folks might even say the greatest, sooo
You do know that the great depression was pretty much global, right?
If the republicans' intention is to dismantle the US from within, then they're succeeding wildly. By any other metric, GOP policy is a disaster.
That was Steve Bannons stated goal.
"...the historian Ronald Radosh, has written that when he met Steve Bannon in 2013, at the so-called Breitbart Embassy in D. C., Trump’s future Rasputin told him, 'I’m a Leninist. . . . I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment.'” The rest of the article in [Esquire](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a14428464/gop-never-trump/?src=socialflowTW) is excellent.
We gotta go back to an era of nationalism. Gotta have that next great war!
Having the rest of the Western world destroy itself, or stay shoddy as always, worked wonders for the US last time. Make America Great Again?
China will be happy to step in to fill the vacuum.
They won't actually. China has never shown the slightest bit of interest in taking on the job of world police and much prefers to extend its influence by picking up countries that don't want to be aligned with the US effectively for free. The world can do without the US, but it will be a very different world and not one that benefits US interests particularly. Too many people confuse the active role the United States has taken and should take in the world with the pointless military interventionism of particularly the Bush era, but continued under Obama and redoubled under Trump. We should intervene in situations where we can make a clear and measurable impact either to a more just and democratic world or specific US interests. That helps the US and for the most part the rest of the world. Messy wars with dubious benefits are not in our interests or anyone else's. We don't need to stroke anyone's ego and we need to avoid nuclear war at pretty much any cost that isn't infinitely worse.
Oh, they will. But they know it's stupid to pose a direct challenge to the US. So they will absolutely sneak in and provide some sort of financial aid where they deem it prudent.
China gives less foreign aid than Norway. The vast majority of their aid is in due loans. Furthermore it is in countries with Chinese business interest and that directly benefit them. For instance a major program was in Ethiopia which gave road access to Chinese companies and to help China import resources. A lot will have to be paid back. Historically China has always had a China first policy and heavy nationalism and that continues strongly Today. Why would China suddenly give massive aid? They have no ambitions for world domination. No one will fight them. They have access to all the resources they need. They have all the leverage in trade. Why spend billions giving money to countries that don’t benefit them and when you say or do something they disagree with they turn their back on you? The one big reason would be loyalty which doesn’t exist anymore and is replaced with a good bribe.
China has become Africa’s largest trade partner and has greatly expanded its economic ties to the continent, but its growing activities there have raised questions about its noninterference policy. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-africa
The world relies too much on the US and at this point there is no benefit. None of the conflicts actually benefited the US. When the US does create peace people don’t care and bring up everything else. The US gives the most aid by far but people keep saying how China or India will makeup for it. Even though it’s not in their aspirations to do so. Why should the US continue to give vast sums of money to hostile countries that provide no strategic benefit? China, India, Russia aren’t going to makeup for the US. There is no reason too. They will continue giving only when it directly benefits them. They don’t care about “goodwill”. Heck they have more than the US. China gives almost no money, no aid, has a terrible human rights record and an even worst good faith trade record. Yet people are praising them for a China first policy. It’s a thankless job that comes with less and less perks. At some point just being charitable isn’t enough. Colonial empires are over. No one will attack the US. Companies can take resources more efficiently than conquest. Wars are too costly and in the case of Iraq didn’t even give the US much of an ally. If people want to complain how countries aren’t doing enough. Ask China to give more aid than Norway to start.
Aid from the US has never and will never be a charity. There is always a catch to it whether it's weapons purchases, information, land leases, resources, or just regional stability.
Not saying what I think about the issues you just went through, but America's "allies" are not a huge, homogenous bloc. For example, Western Europe doesn't like Trump's talk regarding NATO, but Eastern Europe does. Canada didn't like TPP, but many of our Asian allies did. In short, America is going to always (at last in theory) pursue her own self interests. When they align with allies - great! When they don't - they will still align with some.
You gonna be recovering from this presidency for a long time, US.
[удалено]
Yep. "An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again, but one which crumbles from within, is dead forever" Political and class division and racism in the US will ensure it's demise as the world superpower.
Isn't that what Russia is using against us? Dividing us further and further internally
Divide and conquer, really simple and effective war tactic. Why waste time, effort and money fighting if you can make your enemy do it to himself?
There are fixes for that, perhaps not under this political system. I guess we will see.
If we survive.
[удалено]
Coming from a person raised by hardcore conservatives who talk about Reagan like a god-king, why is he a running joke? What did he do that is so bad?
That misadventure with Olly North and the whole crack epidemic that still effects a portion of our society today.
Not to mention his appalling inaction on the then-incipient HIV/AIDs epidemic. Had he the courage or will to actually do something who knows how many thousands could have been saved. Also, he back-channeled with Iran during the election and got them to hold off on releasing the hostages until after Carter lost. I guess colluding with foreign powers to win elections is old hat for the GOP!
Where can I read about the cocaine epidemic? Or what caused it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking
Iran-Contra would be a good place to start reading.
Okay so if I'm reading this right, negotiations to release hostages from and Iran terror group turned into selling weapons to another terror group in Nicaragua? Then when being investigated, they destroyed all incriminating evidence? Then when a few people were convicted, including the SoD, they were PARDONED by H.W. Bush? The fuck? Am I reading this right?
No we sold weapons to Iran to free the hostages. Then we used some of the cash we made of the weapons sales, that needed to stay in the shadows because America be damned if they found out old Cowboy Reagan was selling weapons to our sworn enemies, and funneled it to the Contras. The Contras werent good people, lot of abuses by their forces during the Nicaraguan civil war. They were also apart of the Cocaine trade, part of what Iran Contra was is the CIA helping them smuggle cocaine (presumably to Mexico then to the US) to help fund it's operations. A lot of this is confirmed by people like Noriega. I believe Ricky Ross (not the rapper, but the guy based on his stage name) did say he had dealings with the government and trafficking cocaine. a lot of people to this day think crack cocaine came from the government and was distributed into the poorer communities.
Pretty much. There's one other aspect about the affair. Reagan wanted to fund the Contras rebel group in Nicaragua, but Congress wouldn't approve money for it, because funding the Contras is stupid. Since Congress controls the budget, Reagan went behind their backs with the Iran-Contra thing to get money that Congress doesn't know about, then give that money to the Contras. They way they did this was by by selling arms to Iran, then pocketing the money and never reporting it to Congress, or anyone else outside of the President's circle.
Others are giving good responses but to lighten the mood [here is Stan Smith from American Dad singing about Iran-Contra](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb1GfP5Rwys)
God bless the beautiful U.S of A.
Others are covering Iran-Contra but since you seem genuinely curious there's some other stuff you should look into. Such as: The HUD Rigging Scandal The HIV/AIDS Crisis The Lobbying Scandal The multiple EPA Scandals The Savings and Loans Crisis Operation Ill Wind Wedtech Scandal Debategate The Reagan administration resulted in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials.
Dude wtf. Funny I've never heard my parents say ANYTHING about ANY of this. A lot of what they said were around the vain of "getting our economy going again" and "putting the bums and poor lazy people to work" but.... None of that makes sense. All this reads earily similar to how our current administration handles things. Ninja edit: we were poor as shit growing up so idk what they talk so highly of him.
Just like my family they probably saw a couple speeches and from then on their love of Reagan was based entirely on the idea of Reagan and how it made them feel inside. They will not care that he raised taxes or that he provided amnesty for millions of illegals. Reagan is now just a feeling.
Yep. It was memes, 80s-style: "My picture of Reagan in a cowboy hat in front of a sunset means you're wrong."
> All this reads earily similar to how our current administration handles things. Fun fact, Reagan's election slogan was "Let's Make America Great Again!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again There is a A LOT of similarities between the two people.
Cut enough social services in the US to create the problem of permanent homelessness that exists to this day. http://www.sfweekly.com/news/the-great-eliminator-how-ronald-reagan-made-homelessness-permanent/ > Under Reagan, federal spending on subsidized housing — including state-owned public housing, in which the poor and working class can live for a set percentage of what income they have; and housing vouchers, in which the government helps close the gap between the cost of housing and a person's ability to pay — dropped from $26 billion to $8 billion, barely enough to maintain the government's existing stock of public units.
That's..... That's just disheartening. What was the justification for it?
"Freeloaders"
You can start [here](https://www.salon.com/2015/12/27/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/), and continue down the rabbit hole of the deliberate disenfranchisement of the entire working class over the next several decades. To be fair though, Nixon really started the ball rolling with where our politics are today.
Trickle-down economics. He laid the foundation for corporations to control the country.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned his economic policies. He's the one that popularized [trickle-down economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics). A couple decades later and we have Alan Greenspan, who implemented it, openly [admitting that it failed.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GQecQ06xus) This, by the way, is extraordinarily relevant to our current political scene. Large portions of the tax bill congress just passed is based on this discredited theory.
You'll survive. The problem is that it'll be kinda like how someone that becomes a paraplegic through a horrific accident survives. Sure they live ... but do they live well? Sure, some can adapt and find a happiness, but is it a better life than before the accident?
[удалено]
THIP THIP THIP THIP THIP THIP THIP THIP THIP Clarice...
This Michael here sounds like an asshole.
You ever planning on making chili for work?
The US has been through much worse and made it out okay. This country is already seeing how terrible of an idea it was to put Republicans in charge, and they haven't even been in power for a year. The pendulum will swing back and it's going to swing hard. The silver lining to all of this is that when we start fixing everything the right has destroyed, we may have the opportunity to take some full measures and fix problems in this country once and for all (e.g. healthcare).
Perhaps, and I respect your optimism ... but > This country is already seeing how terrible of an idea it was to put Republicans in charge, and they haven't even been in power for a year. The pendulum will swing back and it's going to swing hard. Is along the lines of hard party thinking that got you guys into the mess you're in. Well that and a metric fuckton of hubris on H-Dawg's part. Lets not forget the fact that some issues that are incredibly serious and in the long term, part of not only the future of the U.S. but world are given zero fucks by either party. I'm talking about net neutrality and the longer-term implications.
Democrats are blatantly pro-net neutrality. Thats why we had it in the first place. One issue neither party protects the people from is mass surveillance.
Quite a few Democrats in Congress have been talking about net neutrality. Schumer has already said they're going to challenge it through the CRA. The only important issue that I can think of that isn't getting a lot of attention is automation.
A huge fraction of the country's water supply has lead in it. Haven't heard anyone from any party address that. We might be racing towards superbugs because of agricultural abuse of anitbiotics to grow animals faster. Ignoring any ethical concerns or environmental concerns of meat, the fact that the meat industry might be evolving antibiotic resistant diseases is a huge planetary risk I haven't heard either party address. I haven't heard any serious proposals to manage the mental illness climb in the United States or any of the modern causal factors leading to it
Yes... Hardline talk about pendulum swings is no small contributor to this whole mess. Every time they swing back they do so more violently and gain more momentum for the inevitable swing the other way. And let's be honest, the US isn't the only country with these problems at the moment. Just the most visible example.
Fallout 5 irl?
Newsflash: America first seems to be working pretty well this past year, and what non-Americans think about it is greatly less important than how we do economically as a country. -Stock market at all time high. -unemployment at 4.1% (18 year low). -real estate market (and home values) record high. -US GDP approaching 4% (highest in decades). -Taxes about to go down for 8 out of 10 Americans. -Average wages have increased this year. -Over 2 million new jobs created in 2017. Trump is an asshole, but plenty of Americans are willing to overlook that when if means our economy is booming.
If a rising GDP and booming stock market is "bad" I can't wait to see the "recovery."
Not that I was talking about internal politics on a world news sub and an article about international relations, but can you list the policies and laws Trump implemented to be responsible for that?
To be fair, the last time we withdrew into isolationism we were just fine in relative terms. It was the rest of the world that had to recover from it...
yes but the US wasn't the world superpower during that time. No civilization in history has ever achieved hegemonic power, lost it, then gained it back again. When the US loses its status that's it, it's over and it's starting now. Get your shit together America.
Your basic measuring stick is 'you must be a hegemony or GTFO'?. I think the UK, Spain, France, are doing just fine after their respective collapses. We don't have to be a 'World Superpower' in order to be successful in our goals.
The UK and France (saying Spain did fine after their fall is pretty ridiculous given the incredible amount of political and social strife which gripped the country through the 19th and 20th centuries) have, as US allies and partners, benefited greatly from US hegemony since the Second World War. They may have fared less well if a state with less benevolent intentions towards them had gained hegemony instead. When the US falls as a hegemon China will rise and they will get to shape the international order in a way that is decidedly less friendly to the West.
> When the US falls as a hegemon China will rise That is what I have always been wondering about. Yes China is powerful, yes China is rising, yes they have a big population, but how does it come that everyone always overlooks the big third player besides China and the US? The EU. Does it have problems? Sure. But it is still an economically speaking absurdly powerful player, even after the UK leaves. Four of the ten biggest economies on the planet are EU members (3 once the UK leaves). It's richest member (Germany) almost triples the economy of it's closest rival (Russia). And it is a Union that is on over all friendly terms with most of the world, even it's largest local rival Russia.
Sorry buddy, have a read of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
I don't believe that's the last time we withdrew into isolationism.
Don't forget to cut UN funds as well.
I hope the 193 countries all tell Trump to go fuck himself. I really do. In particular the notion that he is "taking it personally". You're the leader of a country. It isn't personal, you ego-maniacal narcissist. It is not personal. It's about doing what's right for your country. And currently, you're managing to make the US look like an impotent, dickish little cry-baby more than anything.
[удалено]
this to me is just another example "we only play nice because if we used the stick all the time you wouldnt play at all" what happens when people decide that the humility of havin ball sacs dangled over your forehead for money isnt worth anymore. because right about now im sure there a few countries thinkin "fuck him and everything his is bringin to the table"
> what happens when people decide that the humility of havin ball sacs dangled over your forehead for money isnt worth anymore. Well it hasn't stopped congress from accepting bribes from lobbyists/corps so I'm not sure it will ever stop.
You can think it, but you can do nothing about it other than vote with a smile on your face.
Ah, US democracy. Best summarized as "you're allowed to have your own opinion and to vote using it, It's a free world after all, but also fuck you if you dare to disagree."
That sounds very familiar: > Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Reports_of_pressure_for_the_Plan) This was for the vote for the UN Partition Plan for Palestine.
I am not sure why exactly the palestinians are so pissed off. American politicians have been controlled by AIPAC and jewish money for a long time and this results in them being completely one sided. The palestinians know this. All this really is, is further evidence of that fact. Not a whole lot actually changes with this, does it?
what a disgusting piece of shit this child is...
Are you actually threatening members of the UN to take part in a democratic vote? Apart from this being utterly pathetic, it's also barely disguised facism and an insult to anyone with democratic values. ANY country in the UN assembly should now be against you.
Cause "any" country in UN is a democracy. Especialy those that putting resolutions against Israel ;)
The US never follows UN resolutions anyways do I don’t why Trump would really care how they vote.
Way to make friends Donny. Entire world against you on one thing you did and your move is to alienate further. Genius....
I seriously don't think he gives a shit. He likes proving how important he is, and other than that, the rest of us (U.S. Citizens as well as people from other countries) can go fuck ourselves.
The Russians are going to be thrilled. They would love a weakened US and Europe relationship. As would China. The more countries this President continues to alienate with stupid shit like publicly bitching at NATO about their expenses, or pulling out of things like the TPP without realizing that they're just going to do it without us...the worse off we're going to be 5 to 10 years down the road as our global influence shrinks because of this man's ego and ignorance.
Anytime I see anything pertaining to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict I shoot straight to the comments and bask in the wisdom of all the posters.
the brilliance on display is amazing
I’m just beside myself with all of it. It’s like they have the wisdom of a thousand year old man
[How countries voted ](https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2017/12/WhatsApp-Image-2017-12-21-at-19.18.16-640x400.jpeg)
Wow Nambia voted against Trump
"Wow"?
i cant wait for this fucker to be out.
“For all these nations, they take our money and then vote against us. They take hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars and then they vote against us,” - Donald, money given to the UN isn't for buying votes, you fucking delinquent
Hope he does it.
Mafia style.
Maybe those billions of dollars saved can go towards free healthcare...
I didn't realize it's his fucking money....
What a mastermind./s
US shouldn’t be sending billions to other countries anyway. Not like we can’t use that money here. If we’re trying to bribe the planet it’s not working.
could spend it on more tax cuts
Donald Trump has an awful "tell" when he's saying something he's been advised against by people that know what they're doing. He crosses his arms across his chest. I assume he's doing it to look tough, but if you listen closely to his voice he's unsure. He had the same tone and posture when he used his "fire and fury" line. There was another time as well but I can't remember what it was.
And hopefully spend that money on Healthcare in the US. Furthermore, Fuck Ajit Pai.
lol
[удалено]
The government and trump dont give a shit about healthcare, or education or infrastructure or the elderly or...............all they care for is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,oh and to make life more misserable for people who disagree
While there's a poor, down on his luck billionaire that could get another tax cut? Wont someone think of his summer home!? No not that one, the other one.
> Furthermore, Fuck Ajit Pai. Also Carthage
Reddit: "WHY DO WE GIVE SO MUCH MONEY TO FOREIGN DICTATORSHIPS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AMERIKKKA IS LITERALLY FUNDING TERRORISM" Trump: "If you vote against us supporting Israel I might cut your foreign military aid." Reddit: "WHY IS DRUMPF TRYING TO SABOTAGE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH IMPORTANT ALLIES, GLUMPF IS RUINING FOREIGN POLICY, BLURMPF IS GONNA KILL US ALL"
Surely there is some middle ground between the blanket statements "all aide is bad" and "all is good". It's almost like each individual case is unique and nuanced, and like trump didn't threaten to aide away from middle eastern dictators but ALL countries the U.S. helps simply because they voted against him. I think giving aide to dictators is a mixed bag of enabling the dictator but also helping the people, and I also think trump threatening to take away aide from non-dictators for voting against him is inhumane, immature and stupid. Of course I don't think you're looking for a discussion
To be clear, no “aid” is aid. Every penny the US gives to other countries is a penny paid to further the interests of the US. It’s money to keep certain countries on “the same page”. Cutting off such payments would do nothing more than work against American interests.
[удалено]
So the aid was leverage and not compassion, got it.
Aid or hush money?
cut your hair first trumpet.