What does the global repugnance for Trump mean for international relations?

You can always hope, but reality is likely to prevail.

 

In the words of Jesse, "Keep hope alive!"

 

No man is an island, and indeed, no country is on the planet alone. Nor should they want to be. International respect has always been important to America - until now, apparently. The US doesn't need to be a patsy or a boot licker in order to get that respect. It has always come by way of leadership and strength in the face of enemies. What was so wrong with that?

 

Winning is everything and the only thing.

 

And it has been proven - time and again throughout history - global victories were not won alone.

 

there isn't any question in my mind that the US's global leadership position is preferable to any other nation assuming that role.

But it seems many Americans believe that the flaws in American Leadership should be ignored because the alternative would presumably be worse. And more particularly, when long standing American positions and principles are radically changed or dismissed on whim and wholly uninformed bullshit shoveled onto the world stage to cater to temporary domestic partisan political needs.

I suppose that it all comes down to the question of "what does LEADERSHIP" mean. What qualities mark strong principled leadership on the world stage? How committed is that leader to the nation's guiding principles and how strongly does he/she upholds them even when costly or inconvenient.

 

Talking over an ignoring my questions - Questions that merely sought clarification of your claims - is as lame and pathetic.

Not only did you fail to address these questions - you talked over my post by stating made up nonsense - demonstrably false nonsense.

Of the major Christian groups -

Catholic 37% lean Red, 19% in the middle, 44% lean Blue
Black Protestant 10% Red, 10% Middle, 80% Blue
Mainstream Protestant 44% Red, 16% Middle, 40% Blue
Orthodox 34% Red, 22% Middle, 44% Blue

Your claim is then a patent falsehood. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/

It is only with Evangelical Christians that there is significantly more Red than Blue - 56%, 16%, 28% . The funny thing about this group is that Evangelicals - and you can include Pentecostals and other fundamentalists in this group (while not officially ostracized) are not really accepted by the Majority Christian Denominations. They are "Chino's" Christians in name only.

Regardless - your any way you slice it or dice it - your claim is a preposterous falsehood - and in general your post is pathetic as it does not address the simple questions put to you.

 

You said "I am unaware of your anti-fascists endorsing or venerating any candidate in the manner Trump's white supremacists and neo-nazis worship him."

Are you denying Obama was a candidate, or that Obama was widely hailed as a Messiah?

 

If you are aware of neo-nazis, white supremacists, or any comparable anti-American organizations endorsing and hailing previous presidents in worshipful terms such as "Glorious Leader!" and "Emperor God!", and feel that such an historical diversion is somehow mitigating, please provide links to those sources.

 

I have provided links to Progressive sources hailing Obama as the Messiah and do feel that I have responded to your question:

"I am unaware of your anti-fascists endorsing or venerating any candidate in the manner Trump's white supremacists and neo-nazis worship him."

You should now be aware of anti-fascists both endorsing and venerating a particular candidate in the manner of Trump's supporters worshipping him.

 

You take the good with the bad. We are not perfect and our system means that every 4 years you may have an aberration in our positions.

But you also have to consider that for many in this country we do not want to go beyond trade with other countries. We do not want our soldiers in other countries. We do not want to tell others what to do. We do not want to lead anyone. We want to make money, raise our families, and have an inflated sense of our own awesomeness. Frankly what we really want is the world to take care of their own business and leave one another alone to do so. Kind of like a father that lets his kids do what they want as long as he does not hear about it and they come home without any broken bones.

 

To me it means Vietnam, COINTELPRO, Iran/Contra, MK ULTRA, the NSA. All were justified by "guiding principles."

 

And can you point to any other president in American history that could even been considered an "abberation"?

America absolutely want to tell others what to do, repeatedly. Go beyond trade? How about secure trade routes? how about stable sources of resources, goods and services to feed all that happy money making family awesomeness? How about equal rights? How about democracy around the world? How about standing up to truly bad actors? How about when other nations squash their neighbors? Or better yet, how about a nation developing nuclear arms to threaten everyone else? I doubt you can sell the "we only want to buy and sell stuff and forget about the rest" as a winning formula to any other than egocentric nationalists.


I get that America still has the biggest stick, but it sure as hell doesn't need $700+ billion a year to just to defend the homeland. It spends that money to promote and defend its global interests. Its part of the price for American leadership.

 

American politicians want to, most Americans could care less.
Secure trade routes: We have the largest navy in the world we can do that for ourselves.
Stable resources: There are very few resources, good, or services that we cannot provide for our selves. We choose to get them from elsewhere because of the price. But we do not have too.
Other nations fighting: Not our problem unless they make it our problem.
Nuclear weapons: You are talking about a technology that has been around for more then 80 years. Any country can get them and unless we want to invade we are not going to get rid of it. That would be like ancient China trying to tell the rest of the world that they cannot have gun powder after the secret of making it was already known.
Our nationalists that like intervention is a huge problem that I wish we could stop.

That budget is one of the reasons we should stop.

 

You gain true respect by doing the right things. Not by being a shill or going along with the crowd. Good time friends won’t be there when the chips are down.

It’s a sign of greatness when certain demographics ridicule or despise you.

 

No nation needs to be in a position of global leadership.

All nations need do is trade on the barrel head, without trade organizations or treaties.

 

That won't work. You ought to intuitively know that. We're not talking about walking down to the corner store to get a few things.

 

What trade organizations and treaties do is enrich the elite ruling classes. They ain't needed.

 

There are a million different reasons why you're wrong. So wrong, in fact, that it would literally take days to explain why, but here are a few reasons off the top of my head:

1. There would be no rules in place to establish how and what you're trading for;
2. Other countries would flood the market with potentially unsafe products that would do great harm here--consider China sending toys loaded with leaded paint, e.g.;
3. What happens when state, or non-state actors, lie cheat and steal? Under your scenario, jack ****;
4. What about products lost or stolen--what addresses who carries insurance, and what kind of insurance?;

 

When was that Golden Age when the US was getting international respect? And which country which doesn't respect the US should anyone be concerned about?

Is there any country getting 'international respect'?

 

Secure trade routes: Oh so you have no problem with military adventurism when applied to international commerce. If that ain't selective self interest, what is?

Stable source of resources:
In 2017, the United States was completely dependent on imports for the following 21 mineral commodities:
Arsenic, asbestos, cesium, fluorspar, gallium, natural graphite, indium, manganese, natural sheet mica, nepheline syenite, niobium, industrial quartz crystal, rare earths, rubidium, scandium, strontium, tantalum, thallium, thorium, vanadium, and yttrium

Other nations fighting:
So if russia invades ukraine - no biggie. NK invades SK - no worries. How about Iran attacking Iraq.

Nuclear weapons:
so you haven't got a problem with any and every nation getting nukes. Even trump thinks Iran getting them ain't a good idea. But by all means facilely dismiss the fact that EVERY nuclear armed nation is or could easily be a national security threat.

Can you name any nation where "inward facing nationalists" took over and actually succeeded in building a bigger and better nation? Seems to me most of them have gone up in flames.

 

The international community was shocked and perplexed when he won that's for sure. But the comedy show between the libs and conservatives that followed more than made up for it

 

arsenopyrite (found in the USA), asbestos (Found in the USA), cesium (found in Canada), fluorite (found all over the world including the st Lawrence river) , gallium (found all over the world including the USA) gallium (A byproduct of bauxite found in the USA), natural Graphite (found in Canada now and we have synthetic graphite), indium (processed in Canada also is a byproduct of Zinc ore processing we can do this one if we want) manganese (mined in Mexico), natural sheet mica (can be found where ever scrap mica is found which includes the USA)

Ok I dont have time to go through any more right now. You need to check your sources.

Countries invading other countries is not our problem, we have made it our problem with treaties which was a mistake

How do you stop a country that really wants nukes from getting them without fighting? We have not succeeded yet.

 

If only we had someone like Macron or Trudeau.

 

Either would be an improvement, of course, but neither Canada nor France have enjoyed the US global primacy and respect that are being eradicated.