How The World Regards The US Under MAGA Trump (2 Viewers)

The US has been rejected as leader of the free world. The free countries of the world now view the US as a threat, fallen and corrupted, in the grasp of a malevolent psychopath, in the process of sliding to the dark side at the hands of powerful free-reign Capitalists, the Capitalist end game. There was a chance under Biden, another under Harris, either rejected or manipulated away from the sheep by the wolves. The word is out, stay away. They’ve got our number…

Ask Iran if they feared and respected Biden. Did Biden get European Countries to increase their spending on NATO? Disney is not worth it or it is worth it..either way, what does that to do with Trump?

SteveSBrickNJ said:

Ask Iran if they feared and respected Biden. Did Biden get European Countries to increase their spending on NATO? Disney is not worth it or it is worth it..either way, what does that to do with Trump?

Click to expand...

The simple fact is that Europe was already increasing their spending to NATO under Biden - Why? Russia plain and simple and the fact that most EU countries does not trust the US.

When a US president elect threatens other nato countries - why should we trust the US ?

SteveSBrickNJ said:

Ask Iran if they feared and respected Biden. Did Biden get European Countries to increase their spending on NATO? Disney is not worth it or it is worth it..either way, what does that to do with Trump?

Click to expand...

I would say it has more to do with the American people than it does trump. After all, they are the ones that elected that hateful idiot!

The comment about NATO spending is just stupid. As the ONLY nation that has enacted the "self-defense" clause of the treaty, we should just be grateful for their response. As for Iran, when have they showed disrespect to us when Biden was President? When has fear ever inspired respect from others?

All the attack on Iran did was to prove DPRK right about their own nuclear aspirations. If you have nukes, the US will not attack. If I were the Iranians, or any other non-nuclear state, I would do anything now to obtain a nuclear weapon and test it immediately to let the world know that we have our own deterrent.

SteveSBrickNJ said:

Ask Iran if they feared and respected Biden. Did Biden get European Countries to increase their spending on NATO? Disney is not worth it or it is worth it..either way, what does that to do with Trump?

Click to expand...

So you think respect is born out of fear?

Someone has a weak self-identity.

The US doesn’t spend the NATO requirement on defense. And Trump had zero to do with NATO countries spending more money on defense, Putin had everything to do with that.

So high horses are just a sign you’re misinformed.

Another consequence of Trump’s actions is that a growing number of EU countries are now actively investing in developing and producing their own weapons systems. There is a clear shift underway: European nations no longer want to depend on the United States for critical components such as maintenance, spare parts, or ammunition. The Trump administration’s inconsistent support for Ukraine has underscored just how vulnerable such reliance can be.

There are also emerging concerns about the potential existence of “kill switches” or remote access in U.S.-supplied military equipment—raising the alarming question: what happens if the U.S. were ever to act against NATO interests? This growing mistrust is reshaping not only European defense strategies, but also America’s standing as a reliable global partner.

Trump is actively undermining long-standing alliances and partnerships—relationships that have stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States through multiple conflicts, from Korea to Afghanistan. These are not just symbolic ties; they are alliances forged in blood, trust, and shared values. By treating allies as disposable and questioning mutual defense commitments, he risks unraveling decades of hard-earned cooperation—and weakening the very foundations of US security.

Dragon said:

Another consequence of Trump’s actions is that a growing number of EU countries are now actively investing in developing and producing their own weapons systems. There is a clear shift underway: European nations no longer want to depend on the United States for critical components such as maintenance, spare parts, or ammunition. The Trump administration’s inconsistent support for Ukraine has underscored just how vulnerable such reliance can be.

There are also emerging concerns about the potential existence of “kill switches” or remote access in U.S.-supplied military equipment—raising the alarming question: what happens if the U.S. were ever to act against NATO interests? This growing mistrust is reshaping not only European defense strategies, but also America’s standing as a reliable global partner.

Trump is actively undermining long-standing alliances and partnerships—relationships that have stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States through multiple conflicts, from Korea to Afghanistan. These are not just symbolic ties; they are alliances forged in blood, trust, and shared values. By treating allies as disposable and questioning mutual defense commitments, he risks unraveling decades of hard-earned cooperation—and weakening the very foundations of US security.

Click to expand...

All that stems from trump's, and his voters, failure to understand the true reasoning for NATO's existence. NATO was born out of the belief that the source of 2 world wars were instigated by the instability of European borders. The world would benefit if the nations of Europe would agree to respect each other's boundaries.

With an agreement in place, there would be no need Europe to focus on a military build-up, they could focus on rebuilding their infrastructure and servicing their people. We lead the world with our defense spending by choice, despite being surrounded by peaceful nations and 2 "big beautiful" oceans. We out spend the next top 9 defense spenders...COMBINED!

DJ1BigTymer said:

All that stems from trump's, and his voters, failure to understand the true reasoning for NATO's existence. NATO was born out of the belief that the source of 2 world wars were instigated by the instability of European borders. The world would benefit if the nations of Europe would agree to respect each other's boundaries.

With an agreement in place, there would be no need Europe to focus on a military build-up, they could focus on rebuilding their infrastructure and servicing their people. We lead the world with our defense spending by choice, despite being surrounded by peaceful nations and 2 "big beautiful" oceans. We out spend the next top 9 defense spenders...COMBINED!

Click to expand...

And the US had a tendency to get involved in wars - sometime due to dubious reasons - Iraq being one of them. And every time their european allies stood by them.

SteveSBrickNJ said:

Ask Iran if they feared and respected Biden. Did Biden get European Countries to increase their spending on NATO? Disney is not worth it or it is worth it..either way, what does that to do with Trump?

Click to expand...

Ask if Trump is a carpet bagging trailor and wanna be emperor, why don’t you? The scope of your questions seems to be you really don’t have a clue or your drunk on orange Koolaid. You being purposefully dense? Trying a bit too hard to pull imagined positives out of the Trump tragedy. The point of that graphic is that under the TA, the US is no longer a safe place for tourists to visit, and ...lT’S NOT. THAT’s as much entertainment you’ll get from me today.

DJ1BigTymer said:

All that stems from trump's, and his voters, failure to understand the true reasoning for NATO's existence. NATO was born out of the belief that the source of 2 world wars were instigated by the instability of European borders. The world would benefit if the nations of Europe would agree to respect each other's boundaries.

With an agreement in place, there would be no need Europe to focus on a military build-up, they could focus on rebuilding their infrastructure and servicing their people. We lead the world with our defense spending by choice, despite being surrounded by peaceful nations and 2 "big beautiful" oceans. We out spend the next top 9 defense spenders...COMBINED!

Click to expand...

The bottom line? Europe can no longer depend on The United States as a member of NATO, not with such a scheming, traiorous, petulant, causticly erratic moron we put in charge.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzann...03/us-tourism-lose-29-billion-trump-policies/

If you’re MAGA, stand, cheer, and fantasize about how you might screw up your country so much as Supreme Leader has, and it’s equally a matter of incompetence as it is malevolence and racist, xenophobic policies.

Would you wear this shirt?

Dragon said:

Another consequence of Trump’s actions is that a growing number of EU countries are now actively investing in developing and producing their own weapons systems. There is a clear shift underway: European nations no longer want to depend on the United States for critical components such as maintenance, spare parts, or ammunition. The Trump administration’s inconsistent support for Ukraine has underscored just how vulnerable such reliance can be.

There are also emerging concerns about the potential existence of “kill switches” or remote access in U.S.-supplied military equipment—raising the alarming question: what happens if the U.S. were ever to act against NATO interests? This growing mistrust is reshaping not only European defense strategies, but also America’s standing as a reliable global partner.

Trump is actively undermining long-standing alliances and partnerships—relationships that have stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States through multiple conflicts, from Korea to Afghanistan. These are not just symbolic ties; they are alliances forged in blood, trust, and shared values. By treating allies as disposable and questioning mutual defense commitments, he risks unraveling decades of hard-earned cooperation—and weakening the very foundations of US security.

Click to expand...

I like that the US is losing some of it's global influence. I think it's a good thing for all of us on the planet. Influence within NATO should be a lot more equitable than it has been. It will be better for all the countries in NATO.

DJ1BigTymer said:

All that stems from trump's, and his voters, failure to understand the true reasoning for NATO's existence. NATO was born out of the belief that the source of 2 world wars were instigated by the instability of European borders. The world would benefit if the nations of Europe would agree to respect each other's boundaries.

With an agreement in place, there would be no need Europe to focus on a military build-up, they could focus on rebuilding their infrastructure and servicing their people. We lead the world with our defense spending by choice, despite being surrounded by peaceful nations and 2 "big beautiful" oceans. We out spend the next top 9 defense spenders...COMBINED!

Click to expand...

Fortress America is a real thing. Let's keep it from being turned anymore into Prison America than it already has been.

MT15 said:

The US doesn’t spend the NATO requirement on defense. And Trump had zero to do with NATO countries spending more money on defense, Putin had everything to do with that.

So high horses are just a sign you’re misinformed.

Click to expand...

The NATO requirement is 2% and ours is 3.4%.

That definition of military spending is pretty broad. Did you read it? It includes all military pensions for just one thing. It’s a lot of stuff. It also includes any agency engaged in any defense projects, and any equipment donated to any other nation.

“Although the lack of sufficiently detailed data makes it difficult to apply a common definition of military expenditure on a worldwide basis, SIPRI has adopted a definition as a guideline. Where possible, SIPRI military expenditure data include all current and capital expenditure on: (a) the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; (b) defence ministries and other government agencies engaged in defence projects; (c) paramilitary forces, when judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and (d) military space activities. This should include expenditure on: i. personnel, including: a. salaries of military and civil personnel; b. retirement pensions of military personnel, and; c. social services for personnel; ii. operations and maintenance; iii. procurement; iv. military research and development; v. military infrastructure spending, including military bases. and; vi. military aid (in the military expenditure of the donor country). SIPRI’s estimate of military aid includes financial contributions, training and operational costs, replacement costs of the military equipment stocks donated to recipients and payments to procure additional military equipment for the recipient. However, it does not include the estimated value of military equipment stocks donated. Civil defence and current expenditures on previous military activities, such as veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion and weapon destruction are excluded. In practice it is not possible to apply this definition for all countries, and in many cases SIPRI is confined to using the national data provided. Priority is then given to the choice of a uniform definition over time for each country in order to achieve consistency over time, rather than to adjusting the figures for single years according to a common definition. In the light of these difficulties, military expenditure data is most appropriately used for comparisons over time, and may be less suitable for close comparison between individual countries. Reference should always be made, when comparing data for different countries, to the footnotes and special notes attached to the data for these countries, which indicate deviations from the SIPRI definition, where these are known.”

Also - according to this definition most NATO states are meeting the standard. Italy being the only one not quite meeting it according to your site.

It just depends on how you define military spending. There are certain definitions where the US doesn’t meet the standard either, at least I have seen that posited.

Edit: I figured out what I had read: there has been an agreed upon (I think) increase for NATO to 5%, which the US does not currently meet.

However, I’m sure they will count ICE and all the billions spent for deportations in that percentage when they go to calculate it.

IMO, a % based on GDP is obscene. The US doesn’t need to increase its military spending like that. Maybe some sort of formula that takes GDP into account, but also has a factor limiting the amount based on population as well?

MT15 said:

Edit: I figured out what I had read: there has been an agreed upon (I think) increase for NATO to 5%, which the US does not currently meet.

However, I’m sure they will count ICE and all the billions spent for deportations in that percentage when they go to calculate it.

IMO, a % based on GDP is obscene. The US doesn’t need to increase its military spending like that. Maybe some sort of formula that takes GDP into account, but also has a factor limiting the amount based on population as well?

Click to expand...

No one currently meets it and it’s projected for 2036 adding money spent on cybersecurity and a few other new categories.