Donald Trump's bruising return to the White House has sent many longtime foreign allies scrambling to get their distance, and according to a new piece from The Atlantic, that distance will last long after Trump is gone.

Trump's second term as president has been marked by notable and widespread disrespect toward nations once seen as close U.S. allies. Between his attempts to level massive tariffs against nearly every nation in the world and his frequent breaches of diplomatic norms, Trump has created a hostile global environment in which allies no longer feel safe trusting in the stability of the U.S.

In a new piece for The Atlantic on Tuesday, staff writer Vivian Salama argued that this new dynamic, in which the nations of the world are working to establish a safe distance from the U.S., is bound to become the new normal for years to come, even after Trump leaves office and is potentially replaced by a more traditional, dependable administration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 week ago (25 children)

But these are all things that can be rectified.

I do not see any ambitions to do so. For the DNC it was business as usual after Trump's first term.

We may have differing opinions on how broken the system is, but we can agree that the reason the rest of the world is abandoning the US is more than just Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (24 children)

    Abandoning is a melodramatic way of putting it. Diversifying is a more accurate term. And it’s something that the rest of the world shouldn’t have waited until this point to do. Other countries will always have to rely on the U.S. to some degree, but the fact that they let America be the world police in the first place is their own doing.

    America was never promised to be a perfect utopia that could never do wrong. On the contrary, the founding fathers were well aware of the potential for things to go wrong, and they built the country to be resistant to a complete fall into tyranny, and so far it has been. You’re free to speculate on the future, but as of right now we haven’t yet reached the low points some of our now allies did just in this past century.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (23 children)

    Abandoning is a melodramatic way of putting it.

    It's the accurate way to put it. For example, Canadians are not diversifying their shopping habits. They are consciously choosing to abandon American made goods.

    Other countries will always have to rely on the U.S. to some degree,

    The US will also have to rely on other countries to some degree.

    but the fact that they let America be the world police in the first place is their own doing.

    Ah. This soundbite is a little to close to propaganda. Should other countries be paying the US to be the world police force?

    they built the country to be resistant to a complete fall into tyranny

    Including clauses like emoluments, restrictions on terms, separation of church and state etc. Many of which are being or have been eroded (the main topic of our discussion).

    as of right now we haven’t yet reached the low points

    True. As of now the US has only regressed to "1960 civil rights" levels of democracy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (22 children)

    It's the accurate way to put it. For example, Canadians are not diversifying their shopping habits. They are consciously choosing to abandon American made goods.

    It’s the emotion driven, factually inaccurate way to put it.

    Looks like imports and exports over this summer are up over last year

    Should other countries be paying the US to be the world police force?

    How about not handing over that power to the US at all?

    Including clauses like emoluments, restrictions on terms, separation of church and state etc. Many of which are being or have been eroded

    None of them have been. Arguing about things you don’t really understand is only a sign that maybe you’re not so different from the average flyover state American. Every point you’ve tried to make so far is either a critical misunderstanding, or is outright verifiably false.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (21 children)

    We see that Canadians have increased their spending on domestic travel and on grocery products from Canadian companies and have reduced their spending on similar US products and services

    How about not handing over that power to the US at all?

    The US outspending the collective military budget of many of it's closest allies is not something they have control over. No power is handed over to the US.

    None of them have been

    Many have been. Refer to our previous conversation for the example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (20 children)

    Many have been. Refer to our previous conversation for the example.

    They haven’t been. Our previous conversation confirms that. It’s just you saying things, as if merely speaking them makes them true, like some kind of Harry Potter spell. Like I said, it’s just ignorance on your part, misunderstanding the basis of things.

    No power is handed over to the US.

    Oh course it has. Americas defense spending isn’t really a factor. With every defense agreement, trade agreement, and willful choice to put all your eggs in Americas basket, you handed over that power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (19 children)

    Our previous conversation confirms that

    You have admitted several Supreme Court judges are compromised. I.e. several checks have already failed. Reversal of roe v wade and loss of human rights is solid evidence against your protestations.

    With every defense agreement, trade agreement, and willful choice to put all your eggs in Americas basket, you handed over that power.

    I think recent actions of Spain are good counter examples of this not being true.

    Even in the recent Greenland deal "Non-NATO members are barred from having an ongoing military presence in Greenland" shows the declining relationship between US and it's "allies". The terms bind the US into Nato, giving power to Denmark and demonstrate distrust of the US long past the Trump era.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (18 children)

    You have admitted several Supreme Court judges are compromised. I.e. several checks have already failed.

    That does not logically follow. The Supreme Court is a panel for a reason, the check succeeded. Again you don’t seem to know what the checks and balances are.

    Reversal of roe v wade is solid evidence against your protestations.

    Not in the slightest. Not sure how you came to this conclusion.

    You’re just kind of babbling incoherently at this point. It’s getting harder and harder to keep track of the mental gymnastics you’re doing. You’re replying like an AI chat bot that’s filled it’s context window.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    The Supreme Court is a panel for a reason, the check succeeded.

    The checks that are supposed to prevent compromised judges from sitting in the Supreme Court have failed. This we have agreed.

    The Supreme Court is a panel for a reason.

    The panel voted 6-3 to reverse a federal constitutional right. The panel check failed.

    It’s getting harder and harder to keep track of the mental gymnastics

    If my simple reasoning is getting to much for you then maybe you should take a break.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (16 children)

    The checks that are supposed to prevent compromised judges from sitting in the Supreme Court have failed. This we have agreed.

    We have not agreed. The system does not rely on or promise in the absolute certainty that every Supreme Court justice can be ensured to be impartial. Thats why the Supreme Court is a panel, and mechanisms exist to remove judges. In order for the panel to fail, a majority of Supreme Court justices must be compromised. The fact that there are two problematic members on the panel is within what the panel size was designed to mitigate.

    The panel voted 6-3 to reverse a federal constitutional right. The panel check failed.

    No they did not do that. Abortion access has never at any time been an explicit right in the United States constitution. What the panel did was reverse an earlier decision that a constitutional right to something else entirely merely allowed abortion access as a consequence. The panel check did not fail because the panel did only what was within its power to do. If we want abortion access to be a constitutional right, we have to actually put it in our constitution. Roe v Wade was never more than a bandaid without a permanent solution. We absolutely should enshrine abortion access into our constitution, but before you condemn us for not having yet done so, you should know that the EU does not have a law allowing it in all member states either. In fact two EU member states have restrictions similar to the US.

    What you’re doing isn’t reasoning. You’re just misunderstanding the facts on a fundamental level and then drawing unreasonable conclusions from a pool of ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (15 children)

    The system does not rely on or promise in the absolute certainty that every Supreme Court justice can be ensured to be impartial

    But there are supposed to be checks to ensure impartiality. These have obviously failed.

    The fact that there exists a second layer of checks doesn't mean the first can be ignored

    Abortion access has never at any time been an explicit right in the United States constitution.

    The U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual's right to privacy, which includes the right to decide whether to have an abortion.

    What you’re doing isn’t reasoning

    Pure projection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (14 children)

    But there are supposed to be checks to ensure impartiality. These have obviously

    Like what? Which checks are those specifically? We can’t violate checks that exist only in your head.

    The fact that there exists a second layer of checks doesn't mean the first can be ignored

    Incorrect, having multiple avenues of remediation is the entire point of the system. Thats why they’re referred to as “Checks and balances”, it’s implicit in the name that the system balances faults with remediations. The existence of faults is an assumption of inevitability, not a promise that they can’t and won’t exist. This is a great example of your inability to reason.

    The U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual's right to privacy, which includes the right to decide whether to have an abortion.

    It does not. It protects an individual’s right to privacy, it doesn’t say anything about abortion. Saying it applies to abortion was an interpretation made by the Supreme Court, and thus can be reinterpreted by the Supreme Court. Thats the basis of how our legal system was designed. The legislative branch is the body of government that must actually enshrine the right to abortion access into the constitution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

    Like what? Which checks are those specifically?

    Let's take a look at Justice Clarence Thomas. Conservative billionaires have treated Thomas to “at least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.”

    He should be impeached, but that check has failed.

    The existence of faults is an assumption of inevitability, not a promise that they can’t and won’t exist.

    You have an inability to accept that some checks have already failed

    It protects an individual’s right to privacy, it doesn’t say anything about abortion

    Judges who were not under the pay of Conservative billionaires disagree with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (12 children)

    Judges who were not under the pay of Conservative billionaires disagree with you.

    They do not disagree with me. You can just go and read the fourteenth amendment. It’s not like a lost document. It says nothing about abortion. Roe V Wade was a net positive for us as a society, but it was never a solution.

    He should be impeached, but that check has failed.

    It hasn’t. He’s still open to impeachment.

    You have an inability to accept that some checks have already failed

    You have an inability to prove any have

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    It says nothing about abortion.

    It says nothing about personal computers but privacy still applies.

    It hasn’t. He’s still open to impeachment.

    He is still a judge. Check has failed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (10 children)

    It says nothing about personal computers but privacy still applies.

    No it doesn’t. The protections for personal computers comes from the fourth amendment. The fourteenth amendment just acts as a bridge to the fourth for the states. Likewise if we actually add an amendment to the constitution protecting abortion access, the fourteenth would apply it to the states. But the fourteenth doesn’t either on its own. You continue to prove you don’t understand any of the things you’re talking about.

    He is still a judge. Check has failed.

    Can’t have. He can still be impeached, and there is an interest among opposition government. The check still exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    The fourteenth amendment just acts as a bridge to the fourth for the states

    Your argument is that the word abortion doesn't explicitly appear. Computers are not mentioned in either the 4th or 14th amendment.

    He can still be impeached

    And until he has been we can confidently state that this check has failed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)

    Your argument is that the word abortion doesn't explicitly appear. Computers are not mentioned in either the 4th or 14th amendment.

    Incorrect, the 4th amendment states:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    “Effects” mean personal property. Since computers are your personal property they are explicitly protected in the fourth amendment. There’s no such provision in the constitution that explicitly protects abortion access the way the fourth protects computers.

    And until he has been we can confidently state that this check has failed.

    Because that remediation exists and has not been in any way defeated, we can confidently say that check has not failed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    Ctrl + f "abortion". Not there

    Ctrl + f "computer". Not there

    Argument falsified.

    we can confidently say that check has not failed.

    Judge Clarence is still sitting. The check has not succeeded. Therfore the check has failed.

    I'm sorry, I can't make this simpler for you to understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago* (6 children)

    Ctrl + f "abortion". Not there

    Ctrl + f "computer". Not there

    That’s a a very childlike understanding of language, but in the fourth amendment if you Ctrl + f “effects” , you’ll get a result. And a computer is an effect. The fourth amendment is explicit, all of your effects are protected. Unless you can make the argument that a computer you bought and paid for that you own is not your personal property, and therefore not an effect, your argument here has failed.

    Judge Clarence is still sitting

    And Congress has the power to impeach and the senate has the power to convict, which we may very well see soon. Since this check has not yet failed, it hasn’t failed. Simple as.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago* (5 children)

    Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (4 children)

    At least now that you know what you’re doing, you can take steps to do better

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

    I'm explaining that the US allies are turning their backs because checks and balances are failing, providing examples of those failures as requested.

    You are arguing about the difference between the 4th and 14th amendment.

    The lurking jury can decide who is the bad faith sealion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

    You’re arguing that the checks and balances are failing, but have been unable to provide any actual examples due to all of your claims being poorly reasoned, and based on information that’s verifiably false.

    I didn’t argue the different between the 4th and 14th amendments. You tried to compare a right that doesn’t exist to one that explicitly does. You incorrectly stated a right to abortion was implicitly covered by the constitution by comparing it to the right to protect personal property from unreasonable searches and seizure. But the latter is explicitly covered in the constitution. The former is not. A bad faith argument that stems from you not knowing and not caring what’s actually in the constitution.

    You are the bad faith sealion because you argue with the purpose of exhausting me into giving up by making a number of specious, low-effort arguments from a place of willful ignorance, where you get to make any claim without the burden evidence or reason behind it, but force me to respond from a place of knowledge and understanding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (1 child)

    Ok, let's try this differently.

    In your opinion, why are the allies of the US turning away, and why is this permanent (i.e. more than just Trump)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago*

    They’re turning away because the US is causing them economic harm.

    It’s not permanent, but it is longer term than Trump because the soft power the US built in the last 75 years was due to the aftermath of WW2 and the decades of economic inertia that followed, and once those allies diversify their trade, there’d be no reason for them to go back to their over reliance on American trade (unless America gives them a very compelling reason to).

    Trade with Canada and Mexico will be least affected among the US’ allies though because at the end of the day the USA is the worlds largest consumer economy and without the tariffs it’s just cheaper to export to the US than across an ocean. It’s Americas allies across the pond that will take the longest to recover

  • source
  • parent