Media credibility in the age of Trump

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'm all for trade negotiation and fair trade.   It's doesn't mean Trump has to insult other countries to do that.  Most of Trump's insults to other countries have been unprovoked.  

Of course you have to insult the other country.  And of course it's unprovoked.  You can't establish that the trade is unfair unless you state that the other guy is being unfair, and even knowingly being unfair.   The guy being unfair will never insult the country he's fleecing lest they wake up and realize they're being fleeced!

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

He knows how to negotiate and make good deals that benefit his own interests. I'm not sure he knows how to negotiate and make good deals that benefit the national interest. 

I suppose the question then, is whether or not that will cross over.  I think it will, for his ego if nothing else.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

I suppose the question then, is whether or not that will cross over.  I think it will, for his ego if nothing else.

Agree. 

What I've noticed is that successful people (and happy people, actually) surround themselves with intelligent people and listen to them. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to listen to them. I sometimes wonder if Trump is capable of doing that. 

[Midwest LDS]

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Now you're seeing what I'm saying.  Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama was BAD BAD BAD to international geopolitics. Now you finally have a sensible foreign affairs policy under Trump and you got Americans like @Midwest LDS who say things like "Trump has done serious damage to alliances I think are vital to our security (NATO, South Korea, etc.)."

Yep exactly, those of us who want to keep Russia from dominating Europe. The thing is I do like some of the things Trump is doing (recognizing Israeli control of the Golan Heights is something I 100% support) but I don't like that unless I am a huge Trump Fanboy that has MAGA tattooed across my chest, that I get plastered as ignorant by people who are on my own side.  

Edited March 29, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Agree. 

What I've noticed is that successful people (and happy people, actually) surround themselves with intelligent people and listen to them. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to listen to them. I sometimes wonder if Trump is capable of doing that. 

I think he is and he isn't.  He knows how to delegate, but he also demands results.  I think he had a learning curve when he first became President in a way similar to former generals who become President.  They're used to the rules being relatively simple and straightforward.  They're used to giving orders and being able to expect it to get done.  They don't tolerate excuses and they are quick to switch people out of roles if it seems they can't get stuff done.

But the political arena isn't like that.  Historically, military men have struggled as Presidents because in politics you gotta leave room for factors you can't control or even anticipate.  The real question was "Can Trump adapt?" and I get the sense that he has been able to do so, overall.  You see less drama in the White House lately and the President has been a bit more consistent.  

[Guest Scott]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Now you're seeing what I'm saying.  Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama was BAD BAD BAD to international geopolitics. Now you finally have a sensible foreign affairs policy under Trump and you got Americans like @Midwest LDS who say things like "Trump has done serious damage to alliances I think are vital to our security (NATO, South Korea, etc.)."

I am what you are saying and agree with you on the defense of Europe from Russia, but not the rest.  Also, Trump has done damage to alliances.  

Bush II was bad, but I disagree that Bush I, Clinton, and Obama were "BAD, BAD, BAD" on international geopolitics.   They weren't perfect, but they all bad either.  Obama did more good than harm.    So did Clinton, but this is partially due to luck since the world was at the calmest point in history during that time period.   I'm rather neutral on Bush I.    I'd be positive towards him if it wasn't for the fact that he continued the policy of arming terrorists and brutal regimes.

I disagree with you in that Trump has a sensible foreign affairs policy.  

 

[Guest Scott]

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

You see less drama in the White House lately 

Um, I really don't know what to say about that.

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

I disagree with you in that Trump has a sensible foreign affairs policy.  

Donald Trump has been a businessman his whole life.  He sees everything through a business lens.  He looks at other countries and sees business partners and competitors.  That's it.  Once you see it that way, his foreign policy looks a lot more coherent.  

It also makes sense of why he'd be less polite toward poorer countries.  If there's no business opportunity there, he's not going to make time for them and he's not going to be as diplomatic.  I'd bet you a week's pay against a jelly doughnut that he sees North Korea as a business opportunity and that's why he's been making efforts there, plus it looks fantastic on a resume.  Sure, North  Korea is poor too, but it has the backing of some pretty wealthy neighbors and that can be an important factor in negotiations and deals with them.

Donald Trump is who he is.  Understand the man, and you'll understand the President.

[Guest Mores]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

If Barr is right, then the easiest way to make impeachment talk disappear is to release the full Mueller report. Plain and simple. 

I absolutely agree.  And they are working on that.  But it does take time to work through much of the classified information.

But if you're worried about Barr's misinterpretation, then why is Mueller being silent about it.  Do you remember when a media source declared that Mueller had found the smoking gun (or some such nonsense) and Mueller spoke up and said,"Not quite."  Why isn't Mueller saying Barr is wrong now?

Quote

1. His eagerness to back out of Syria against the advisement of the Pentagon and intel community. 

Again, I absolutely agree that this was a terrible decision.  But I don't understand how this can be considered collusion with Russia.

Quote

2. Trump's business ties to Russia, which are extensive, well-documented, and a matter of public record. In a void, those ties are meaningless. But when you add in Russian election medding and Trump's apparent refusal to speak too harshly of Putin, even while sanctions are being imposed, there are suddenly some questions that need to be answered.

A billionaire businessman has business dealings with companies in one of the largest economies in the world is evidence of colluding with them at a treasonous level?  You're going to have to do better than that.

Remember that the same sources that describe "so many" business dealings also point out how many of them failed because Russians were NOT cooperating.

Quote

3. 13 Russian citizens and 3 Russian companies were indicted by Mueller for election interference. That the Russians actively helped Trump win is a well-documented fact. The big questions are why and to what extent did the Trump campaign know about and facilitate it. Again, there are indictments and known elements of the Mueller investigation that paint the Trump campaign as anything but innocent. And yes, "not innocent" isn't the same as "guilty", legally speaking. 

You're talking about the "Internet Research Agency".  And not a single person was tied to Trump.  And Richard Pinedo was just a hack that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time such that he came under Mueller's eye.  Sucks to be him.

Quote

You haven't been here long, so I'll forgive you for not knowing my stance on Hillary. In short, I was about as eager to vote for her as some Republicans were to vote for Trump. If you're looking for me to defend anything having to do with Hillary, you're going to be sorely disappointed. 

You say that.  But why are you so eager to attack Trump who has a lot LESS evidence against him, but you leave Hillary alone who has much MORE evidence against her?

Quote

Everyone has biases. I gladly wear mine on my sleeve. The point of this thread is that journalists should not. 

That's where it started with your OP.  But the post I responded to was about your position that there is an objective case for impeachment.  You shifted the topic.  Not me.

And if it is really about the media, why haven't you said anything about why the media isn't attacking Hillary for her offenses in spite if the fact the evidence against her is much more damning and profuse?

Edited March 29, 2019 by Mores

[unixknight]

7 minutes ago, Mores said:

You say that.  But why are you so eager to attack Trump who has a lot LESS evidence against him, but you leave Hillary alone who has much MORE evidence against her?

Hillary?  What about Barack "Tell Vlad I'll have more flexibility after the election" Obama who really did come off as Putin's Puppet?  When the Russians wanted U.S. missile defense out of Poland, Obama was too happy to oblige them.  

(Not that I disagree with you about Clinton.  I just think Obama is a better example of the raging hypocrisy of the MSM and anti-Trumpers when it comes to being chummy with the Russians.)

[anatess2]

40 minutes ago, Scott said:

Source?  I disagree.     

I call your bumper sticker and raise you a Vietnamese Trump haircut. 

But yeah, a 2018 picture would be better that gives you Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia at a glance.  Indonesia is an anti-US Islam-majority nation.  And that's with the worldwide 24/7 anti-Trump news coverage.  Vietnam and US are brothers from a different mother - doesn't matter who is President - so if they were showing up on that chart they would be at least 80% regardless of who is President

Quote

I don't know the reasons behind the bumper stickers, but they were all over St Eustatius, Saba, and Sint Maarten.    Here's a picture I took of one:

I also saw them in Norway and Iceland, though of a different style.   I understand the reasoning behind the ones in Iceland and Norway, but not the ones in the Caribbean.

 

You can go ahead and replace "the Carribean" with Netherlands.  So... in the Dutch elections of 2017, Geert Wilders - the candidate that was touted by the Dutch as the Dutch Trump - almost won as PM even amid a quadzillion controversies and Wilders being absent on the debates... all because of the "Trump effect".

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Donald Trump has been a businessman his whole life.  He sees everything through a business lens.  He looks at other countries and sees business partners and competitors.  That's it.  

I agree that that's how Trump looks at things and you hit the nail on the head.  

My problem with Trump on foreign policy is that he's eroded trust in the US among our allies.   It's more than that, but he  is creating hostility towards the US among our allies and supporters.  He's picking childish fights with our allies for no good reason.   This makes them less likely to support us when the time comes.   Many of our allies don't take Trump seriously.   Maybe consider him to be a threat.   Many think that he is basing his foreign policy on a whim rather than with rational thought or calculation.

He has also taught other countries that signing treaties with the US means nothing because he or the US can break them at anytime.   What is the motivation for any country signing a treaty with us if it can be broken at any time?

Trump also changes his mind on foreign policy at the drop of a hat (so did Obama).   

Trump isn't alone in this, but it also bothers me how he sucks up to the Saudis (as have other presidents).  The Saudis are only our allies as long as they get something out of it.   They would turn on us at the drop of a hat if it suited their interest.    I'm not saying that we should cut relations with the Saudis, but as much as we give them, we should be demanding more in return.  The Saudis are still a supporter of terrorism and are horrible at human rights. They don't share US values.   I'd like to see Trump go to them and say that if they want our protection, they should cut some of the bull-pucky.   Not that other presidents have done better.   Given Trump's rhetoric, I was hoping for more in this regard. 

Trump seems to suck up to countries that don't deserve all we give them, while simultaneously picking fights with our allies that actually do share our values.  I agree with you that it about business, money, and competition.   

 

 

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

He has also taught other countries that signing treaties with the US means nothing because he or the US can break them at anytime.   What is the motivation for any country signing a treaty with us if it can be broken at any time?

This one's a tough issue because, to be honest, I'm glad he's pulled us out of a couple really bad deals.  It's true you don't want a reputation for your country to be one of not sticking to treaties, but at the same time there may be a lesser of two evils issue there.   A bad treaty is a bad treaty, and sometimes you have to take the hit to your reputation if that looks like a better alternative.

Time will tell whether they were the right decisions.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

I agree that that's how Trump looks at things and you hit the nail on the head.  

My problem with Trump on foreign policy is that he's eroded trust in the US among our allies.   It's more than that, but he  is creating hostility towards the US among our allies and supporters.  He's picking childish fights with our allies for no good reason.   This makes them less likely to support us when the time comes.   Many of our allies don't take Trump seriously.   Maybe consider him to be a threat.   Many think that he is basing his foreign policy on a whim rather than with rational thought or calculation.

He has also taught other countries that signing treaties with the US means nothing because he or the US can break them at anytime.   What is the motivation for any country signing a treaty with us if it can be broken at any time?

Trump also changes his mind on foreign policy at the drop of a hat (so did Obama).   

Trump isn't alone in this, but it also bothers me how he sucks up to the Saudis (as have other presidents).  The Saudis are only our allies as long as they get something out of it.   They would turn on us at the drop of a hat if it suited their interest.    I'm not saying that we should cut relations with the Saudis, but as much as we give them, we should be demanding more in return.  The Saudis are still a supporter of terrorism and are horrible at human rights. They don't share US values.   I'd like to see Trump go to them and say that if they want our protection, they should cut some of the bull-pucky.   Not that other presidents have done better.   Given Trump's rhetoric, I was hoping for more in this regard. 

Trump seems to suck up to countries that don't deserve all we give them, while simultaneously picking fights with our allies that actually do share our values.  I agree with you that it about business, money, and competition.   

 

 

All this is what you would get out of the MSM.

Words such as "eroding trust in the US" and "sucks up to the Saudis" are MSM narratives.

"sucks up to the Saudis" is a WHOLE LOT BIGGER than that. 

Okay, I'll give you just a snapshot of what I mean than "bigger than that" in terms that is very easily understood (I'm assuming).  So, you know Mitt Romney has been relentless in his attacks against Trump and Trump has been giving it back with no quarter... yet when Mitt Romney ran for Senate in Utah, TRUMP ENDORSED HIM.  Somebody who only sees "sucks up to the Saudis" would see, "See.. Trump is such a liar!".

[Just_A_Guy]

My thoughts at this point are thus, vis a vis the OP:  American politics was more or less a boxing match, in the which the GOP mostly played by the rules and the Dems were increasingly punching below the belt, tripping, kicking, biting, pinching, etc.  The GOP had been pressing on believing that the superiority of its ideas would allow it to outlast its opponent in the end—but in the meantime, it looks like they’re losing.  So along comes Trump saying “screw it.  You Dems want MMA, I’ll drag you into the cage and we’ll do it MMA-style.”  The two problems I have with that are 1) I don’t think a democratic republic can sustain a politics-ex-cage-fight scenario for long without either fracturing itself or converting into totalitarianism; and 2) even if it could—Trump aside, the Dems are simply better equipped to fight dirty than we are.  You’re already seeing that with AOC, etc—in a boxing ring she’d be utterly incompetent, but we aren’t in a boxing ring anymore; and last I heard even Scott Adams was impressed.

Am I pleasantly surprised with Trump’s judicial picks?  Yep.  Am I glad he hasn’t been more willing to let the Dems set the agenda?  Absolutely.  Do I love the way he’s re-energized folks like McConnell and Graham?  You betcha.  Is it fun to watch AOC expose herself to the point that Mike Lee can give her a good old-school roasting?  Oh, heavens, yes.  Do I take fiendish delight in the fact that he’s kept the left busy for two years accusing him of the ONE slimy thing he isn’t actually guilty of?  Mais oui.  But I still believe Trump is the political equivalent of amphetamines, and I think as a party and a nation we’re in for one heckuva detox.  (I also have my standard compunction about Trump miserably failing D&C 93, but I’ve been told that’s neither here nor there, because God is dead, or something.)

As far as foreign alliances go—effective diplomacy seems to rely on trust, stability, deliberation, and competence.  Trump doesn’t exude any of those (I do feel he is improving on stability and competence), and our foreign policy has somewhat suffered.  But it’s also fair to point out that we are at a strategic crossroads.  Even if you’re mildly interventionist like me (I’m inclined to feel like it’s probably better to lose 3,000 soldiers/year for a hundred years, then to lose half a million soldiers in World War III—*IF*, by those low-burner conflicts, you can actually prevent the world war)—it’s not at all clear to me that the old network of alliances with grifter-states and kleptocracies is serving that purpose.  Maybe what we need for a couple of years is for NATO and Japan and India and South Korea and the third world nations of South America and Africa to honestly believe we’re willing to see the Russkies and Chinese and the NorKos swallow them up; while we take a few years to focus on our armed forces and infrastructure security not sucking any more and give the rest of the world some time to think about who the bad guys really are.  We’re supposed to be a city on a hill—those who love liberty will naturally find us attractive if we stick to our principles; but making the rest of the world *like* us or reinvent itself in our image was never part of our national charter.  

So foreign-policy-wise, I’m less concerned about what Trump says he wants to do; than about whether his personal shortcomings thwart his attempts to enact his own agenda.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

He has also taught other countries that signing treaties with the US means nothing because he or the US can break them at anytime.   What is the motivation for any country signing a treaty with us if it can be broken at any time?

 

This is false.  Every treaty is signed with provisions of withdrawal.  Basically, every country who goes into treaty with another knows upon the signing that each of the signatories have the option to withdraw by fulfilling the terms of withdrawal.  A treaty becomes a part of Federal Law in the US, that's why the Senate has to approve the treaty before it is ratified.  A treaty becomes automatically invalid if it contradicts the US Constitution (the Constitution has supremacy over any foreign law in the USA).  Also, the President of the USA can pull out of a treaty if the terms of the treaty have been violated by the other parties.  He can also re-negotiate an un-violated treaty.  And lastly, he can withdrew from a treaty by following the treaty's terms of withdrawal.  None of this supports the "What is the motivation for any country signing a treaty with us if it can be broken at any time?" rhetorical question.

For example:  Trump pulled out of the US-Russia nuclear arms treaty because Russia has not improved after Obama accused them of violating the terms of the treaty in 2014.

W Bush pulled out of the US-Russia anti-ballistic missile treaty after 9/11 due to a change in foreign policy in the US that is impeded by the treaty.  W Bush withdrew by fulfilling the terms of withdrawal.

[Guest Godless]

17 minutes ago, Mores said:

But if you're worried about Barr's misinterpretation, then why is Mueller being silent about it.  Do you remember when a media source declared that Mueller had found the smoking gun (or some such nonsense) and Mueller spoke up and said,"Not quite."  Why isn't Mueller saying Barr is wrong now?

Because that's not the process. You're right, it's going to be released at some point. And depending on how much is redacted, the report should be able to speak for itself. If Congress feels that parts of the report were unclear or that parts were redacted that they need information on, they can subpoena Mueller.  

As for the difference between Barr and Buzzfeed, one was giving an interpretation of a report that will eventually be made more clear. The other was mischaracterizing elements of an ongoing investigation. It's not Mueller's job to say how the facts of the investigation should be used. 

17 minutes ago, Mores said:

Again, I absolutely agree that this was a terrible decision.  But I don't understand how this can be considered collusion with Russia.

Russia has taken a direct interest in Syria, and Trump's statements and actions around Syria seem to line up more with Putin's interests than our own. That should be of concern to anyone with the words "America First" in their vocabulary. 

17 minutes ago, Mores said:

A billionaire businessman has business dealings with companies in one of the largest economies in the world is evidence of colluding with them at a treasonous level?  You're going to have to do better than that.

Technically, Russia doesn't even break the top 10 on a list that includes Italy and Brazil. They're up there, but there's at least 9 countries that are more economically attractive than Russia while also being less politically hostile. But that's not the point. Again, his business dealings pre-2016 aren't a concern. Communication between his presidential campaign and the Kremlin, on the other hand, should raise red flags. And that's where his business dealings become of interest. We already know that the campaign was in contact with Russia. The lingering questions are, "Did they break the law?" and "How much did Trump himself know?"

17 minutes ago, Mores said:

Remember that the same sources that describe "so many" business dealings also point out how many of them failed because Russians were NOT cooperating.

I'd imagine that having a business-savvy potential ally in the White House could drum up some cooperation under the right circumstances. And those last four words are the root of our concerns. What can Trump do as president to help his business dealings in Russia that he wasn't able to do as a private citizen? Pull military presence out of Syria? Make 13 indictments disappear? 

17 minutes ago, Mores said:

You say that.  But why are you so eager to attack Trump who has a lot LESS evidence against him, but you leave Hillary alone who has much MORE evidence against her?

Hillary's not the president. If she ends up being investigated, you won't see me complaining about it. But personally, the guy with the launch codes is the bigger concern.

[Guest Scott]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

"sucks up to the Saudis" is a WHOLE LOT BIGGER than that. 

The US has been sucking up to the Saudis for decades.  Trump is no different in this regard.  I expected that the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama would all suck up to the Saudis and they didn't disappoint.  I was just hoping that Trump would be different in this regard, especially given his rhetoric towards a lot of our allies.  

Look, I get the rational for keeping the Saudis as an ally.  They are a very stable country right in the middle  of the Middle East that when in comparison with other countries in the surrounding areas, have  played nice with their neighbors.  

The thing is though is that while they have made some small improvements, they still have been supporting terrorism, have done little to stop terrorism, and have been horrible with human rights.   For the most part, they don't share our values.   They are only our "friends" because they want something in return.  

I do get the rationalization for keeping them as an ally, but Saudi Arabia is in danger without our protection and they know this.   We should be demanding that they improve human rights and do more to curtail terrorism if they want our protection.    The Bushes, Clinton, and Obama didn't do this.   I was just hoping that Trump would, especially given his rhetoric to other countries who seemed to deserve his criticism a lot less than Saudi does.  

On another note, overall, I do not like Trump, but I also want to make it clear that I don't want to see him fail or to not succeed.   

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

The US has been sucking up to the Saudis for decades.  Trump is no different in this regard.  I expected that the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama would all suck up to the Saudis and they didn't disappoint.  I was just hoping that Trump would be different in this regard, especially given his rhetoric towards a lot of our allies.  

This has zero relevance to what is currently happening with the Saudis - a fact that is only happening under Trump.  The biggest give-away to this is presented in Marco Rubio's interview with Rex Tillerson on his senate confirmation hearing, Marco Rubio being a Bush lackey.  This was waaay before the Saudi political earthquake occurred and Trump established his response.

Edited March 29, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But yeah, a 2018 picture would be better that gives you Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia at a glance.  

Yes, countries in Asia still view the US favorably, but here is what you said:

The percentage of people ALL OVER ASIA having a favorable view of the US has increased greatly due to what Trump has done in 2 years.  

I asked for a source for this comment.   The same source as you are quoting above also indicates that the favorable view of the US has gone down in much of Asia since Trump was in office, even if it is still positive.   It's still high in places like Japan, for example, but lower than it was before Trump took office.  

Quote

Indonesia is an anti-US Islam-majority nation.

I'm going to disagree.   Only a few years ago Indonesia held the US in high regard.

Also, as an American citizen, I have never been treated so well in any country than I was while in Indonesia.

Here is what I wrote upon returning from our trip:

Final Thoughts

On this trip, we did do quite a bit of hiking, climbing, caving, river rafting and saw much wildlife, but we did city and cultural activities as well. Because of the nature of this website, the city and cultural activities are beyond the scope of this particular trip report which for the most part only focused on the outdoor aspects of our journey. Indonesia is the world’s most populous Islamic country with about ~238,000,000 people of which over 88% are Islamic. Malaysia is over 60% Islamic and is nearing 28,000,000 in population. As an American I was somewhat surprised with my experience (we weren't worried about the trip, but I thought to encounter at least a little anti-American sentiment mixed with mostly friendly people). What I found was perhaps the friendliest people I have met anywhere in the world. I even saw a few people flying American Flags and people with American Flag sheets and pillows and many people said to us "God bless America". Everyone was friendly and I heard not one negative comment about the United States. Everyone (literally everyone we met) wanted to hear all about "Amereeka". For the most part this wasn't a guided tour (other than a few hikes) type trip, but one which we traveled using public transportation and as the locals do. We interacted with many locals. It seems the people are very humbled and grateful for the aid the US has given them during the big tsunami and earthquakes and we met nothing but friendly people. We went for the wildlife, hiking, rafting and caves, but ended up falling in love with the people. It was a great experience. Never have I been treated as well as I was while traveling overseas as an American.

House in Bukit Lawang, Indonesia.

 

If anyone else wants to read the full trip report, with photographs, here it is:

https://www.summitpost.org/mountains-jungles-orangutans-wild-caves-raging-rivers-and-erupting-volcanoes/691015

 

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You can go ahead and replace "the Carribean" with Netherlands.  So... in the Dutch elections of 2017, Geert Wilders - the candidate that was touted by the Dutch as the Dutch Trump - almost won as PM even amid a quadzillion controversies and Wilders being absent on the debates... all because of the "Trump effect".

 

Yes, maybe so, but I still haven't seen anything like that (bumper stickers) under any other US president.  

 

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, countries in Asia still view the US favorably, but here is what you said:

The percentage of people ALL OVER ASIA having a favorable view of the US has increased greatly due to what Trump has done in 2 years. 

Dude, you made so many comments without sources, now I'm doing all the work for you.

[unixknight]

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As far as foreign alliances go—effective diplomacy seems to rely on trust, stability, deliberation, and competence. 

I think those are important, but I think there's an element that's bigger:  Self-interest.  I have heard diplomacy being described as "the art of letting the other side get your way."  Countries make deals mainly based on what's best for them (however they define that) and not on whether the other side are a bunch of good guys.    

[Guest Scott]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This has zero relevance to what is currently happening with the Saudis - a fact that is only happening under Trump.  The biggest give-away to this is presented in Marco Rubio's interview with Rex Tillerson on his senate confirmation hearing, Marco Rubio being a Bush lackey.  This was waaay before the Saudi political earthquake occurred and Trump established his response.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  Maybe you could explain it some more.  

I would have said the same thing I did about the US and the Saudis regardless if Trump were elected or not. 

To put it briefly, Saudi Arabia needs our protection (we spend billions on protecting Saudi), but they haven't been giving enough in return.  They don't share US values and haven't done much to curtail terrorism.   They are still terrible with human rights, even if there have been some improvements.  

Someone in the US needs to step forward and do something about this.   I don't care who it is or what party they belong to.   I was hoping that it would be Trump.  I still hope that it is Trump since he is the current president.   I thought that there was a chance that he might actually do this (and he has my support if he would), but I've kind of lost hope that he would do this. I knew that Obama didn't have the guts to do it, but I was really hoping that Trump would.   My hope has mostly faded on that hope though since as unixknight points out Trump looks at everything from a business and competition standpoint.  

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'm going to disagree.   Only a few years ago Indonesia held the US in high regard.

Also, as an American citizen, I have never been treated so well in any country than I was while in Indonesia.

 

Sigh.  "I have never been treated so well in any country than in Indonesia" - you must not have passed by the Philippines.  And guess what, your experience as a dollar-carrying tourist is vastly different than how people regard your country.  Indonesia do not hold the US in high regard.  They held Obama in higher regard than the previous administrations because Obama grew up in Indonesia.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Scott]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Dude, you made so many comments without sources, now I'm doing all the work for you.

I didn't post the pictures of the sources, but I said that I trusted Pew, which is the same source you used. Here are a bunch of sources:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/09/how-the-world-views-the-u-s-and-its-president-in-9-charts/

I was just waiting to see what sources you came up with. 😏