2 minutes ago, Terrance8812 said:

Seems that way. He's already made 10 posts on this topic alone and not even one is on topic and in regards to my OP. What is wrong?

Don't want to speculate as I'm not a psychologist, but since he's also started a topic called "Why do people move to Thailand to discuss politics so much?" whatever it is it's serious.

9 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

He's averaging 100 posts a day. I guess that's his whole life now. Sad.

You trolls make me laugh. Sitting in the UK 

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

Don't want to speculate as I'm not a psychologist, but since he's also started a topic called "Why do people move to Thailand to discuss politics so much?" whatever it is it's serious.

He started the topic 

Trumps in bed with all the bad actors now

9 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Don't want to speculate as I'm not a psychologist, but since he's also started a topic called "Why do people move to Thailand to discuss politics so much?" whatever it is it's serious.

Thanks. I was just trying to understand the problem. Totally frustrated and engrossed. And stalks me incessantly. Who knows. It's very unusual. Never seen anything like it in an online community. It's a sad and empty obsession though. 

1 minute ago, Terrance8812 said:

Thanks. I was just trying to understand the problem. Totally frustrated and engrossed. And stalks me incessantly. Who knows. It's very unusual though. Never seen anything like it in an online community. It's a sad and empty obsession though. 

It's called Trump hatred. You have it bad. Try looking up facts on Ukraine.

 

US doesnt need NATO.

 

Btw egg prices down 48% 

3 minutes ago, Terrance8812 said:

Thanks. I was just trying to understand the problem. Totally frustrated and engrossed. And stalks me incessantly. Who knows. It's very unusual. Never seen anything like it in an online community. It's a sad and empty obsession though. 

Yes, very sad.

1 minute ago, Harrisfan said:

It's called Trump hatred. You have it bad. Try looking up facts on Ukraine.

 

US doesnt need NATO.

 

Btw egg prices down 48% 

Post #14 already. WOW!

Just now, BLMFem said:

Yes, very sad.

Yep, and not a single one of any substance or on topic. Just stalking and trolling. I can't comprehend.

Just now, Terrance8812 said:

Post #14 already. WOW!

Yes wow. All laughing at you. Big bad Trump. 

Just now, Terrance8812 said:

Post #14 already. WOW!

My advice is to minimize interactions with him. It only fuels whatever is ailing him.

26 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Yes wow. All laughing at you. Big bad Trump. 

#15. Keep going. #20 soon within reach. So weird. I'm gobsmacked.

Just now, Terrance8812 said:

#15. Keep going. #20 soi. within reach. So weird. I'm gobsmacked.

You keep quoting me 

Just now, BLMFem said:

My advice is to minimize interactions with him. It only fuels whatever is ailing him.

Thanks. Good point. I understand. It's actually interesting to watch though. Have never experienced or seen anything like it before. Especially with never posting anything intelligible. Pure obsession. 

1 hour ago, Terrance8812 said:

At this point, it’s fair to ask: does the U.S. still have actual allies, or is it just burning bridges while cozying up to strongmen? Trump’s second term has brought more of the same: bashing NATO, picking fights with trade partners, and treating diplomacy like a reality TV stunt. Meanwhile, countries like Russia and El Salvador seem to be getting a free pass. What if the U.S. was facing a serious humanitarian crisis in any way (a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, another pandemic, etc.) would any other countries step in to help at this point?

 

Look at the track record so far. Trade wars with Canada and Mexico are flaring up again, Germany is being pushed away with car tariffs, NATO allies are once more being treated like freeloaders, and any talk of defending Ukraine is practically off the table. The U.K. and Japan might still be in the U.S. orbit, but how much longer before they hedge their bets elsewhere? And let’s not forget the bizarre Greenland fiasco that's now soured things with Denmark, or trying to annex Canada into being the 51st U.S. state because obviously, trying to buy another country is a great way to maintain goodwill.

 

And the U.S. doesn't at all have Iran, China, or North Korea on its side either. So what’s the endgame? Is the U.S. going full isolationist, or is it simply replacing real allies with a handful of autocrats who know how to flatter Trump? If this is all part of some genius strategy, then someone needs to explain it because, right now, it looks more like the U.S. is trading decades-old alliances for a couple of dictatorships and a handful of Twitter rants.

 

Are long standing alliances doomed and all the goodwill for America and its domestic export products lost, or is this just another phase of Trump’s “art of no deal” diplomacy?

 

The question of whether the U.S. still has allies—or is just torching relationships while cozying up to strongmen—cuts to the heart of Trump’s second term so far. Let’s break it down: the U.S. isn’t exactly friendless, but the way things are going, it’s testing the patience of even its most reliable partners. The track record you’ve laid out—bashing NATO, trade spats with Canada and Mexico, car tariffs on Germany, and the weird Greenland obsession—doesn’t scream “team player.” Add in the lukewarm stance on Ukraine and the overtures to figures like Putin or Bukele in El Salvador, and it’s easy to see why people might wonder if the U.S. is swapping democratic allies for autocratic fanboys.

If a serious humanitarian crisis hit the U.S. today—say, a massive hurricane, a terrorist attack, or another pandemic—would other countries step up? Probably, but with caveats. Historically, allies have rallied when the U.S. is in genuine need. After 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time ever, and countries like Canada and the U.K. were quick to offer support. During Hurricane Katrina, over 90 nations pledged aid, including unlikely players like Cuba and Venezuela. Even now, with all the bridge-burning, practical self-interest and residual goodwill would likely prompt some response. The U.K. and Japan, still tethered by deep military and economic ties, would almost certainly step in. Canada and Mexico, despite trade wars, can’t afford to let their neighbor collapse—geography alone ensures that. NATO might grumble, but they’d still show up, if only to preserve the alliance’s credibility.

That said, the enthusiasm would be muted. Germany, France, and others in Europe are fed up with being treated like freeloaders, and they’re already pivoting toward greater EU autonomy. Denmark’s still salty about Greenland, and the “let’s annex Canada” quip didn’t exactly warm hearts in Ottawa. Developing nations might help, but only to the extent it scores them points or leverage. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? They’d either sit it out or exploit the chaos—don’t expect humanitarian rescues from that crew. The U.S. would get aid, but it’d be less “global solidarity” and more “bare minimum obligation.”

The endgame here is murky. Isolationism seems to be the vibe—Trump’s “America First” redux leans hard into doing it alone, consequences be damned. But it’s not pure withdrawal; there’s a pattern of favoring leaders who play to his ego over institutions that demand compromise. Russia gets a pass because Putin’s a “strong guy”; El Salvador’s Bukele gets a nod for the same reason. NATO? Too many cooks in the kitchen. Trade partners? Too needy. It’s less a genius strategy and more a gut-driven preference for bilateral flexing over multilateral slogging. The art of no deal, as you put it, isn’t about building something new—it’s about tearing down anything that doesn’t fit the script.

Are alliances doomed? Not yet, but they’re fraying. The U.S. still has clout—its economy, military, and cultural pull aren’t going anywhere fast. Products like Coca-Cola or iPhones aren’t suddenly trash because of Trump’s tweets. But goodwill’s eroding, and fast. The U.K. and Japan might hang on, but they’re not dumb—they’ll hedge with China or the EU if the U.S. keeps acting erratic. Canada and Mexico will grit their teeth and deal, but don’t expect warm fuzzies. Europe’s already talking “strategic autonomy” louder than ever. If this keeps up, the U.S. risks a world where it’s not isolated, but tolerated—less a leader, more a loud neighbor nobody fully trusts.

Could this just be a phase? Sure, administrations change, and Trump’s style isn’t permanent. But damage compounds. Decades-old alliances can survive a rough four years—they did it once already—but the longer this goes, the more countries start planning for a post-American reality. The U.S. isn’t out of friends yet, but it’s playing a dangerous game of seeing how many it can afford to lose.

2 minutes ago, Terrance8812 said:

Thanks. Good point. I understand. It's actually interesting to watch though. Have never experienced or seen anything like it before. Especially with never posting anything intelligible. Pure obsession. 

Yes, it seems to be coming to a boil. I expect a post full of rage, hate and expletives very soon.

4 minutes ago, Digitalbanana said:

 

The question of whether the U.S. still has allies—or is just torching relationships while cozying up to strongmen—cuts to the heart of Trump’s second term so far. Let’s break it down: the U.S. isn’t exactly friendless, but the way things are going, it’s testing the patience of even its most reliable partners. The track record you’ve laid out—bashing NATO, trade spats with Canada and Mexico, car tariffs on Germany, and the weird Greenland obsession—doesn’t scream “team player.” Add in the lukewarm stance on Ukraine and the overtures to figures like Putin or Bukele in El Salvador, and it’s easy to see why people might wonder if the U.S. is swapping democratic allies for autocratic fanboys.

If a serious humanitarian crisis hit the U.S. today—say, a massive hurricane, a terrorist attack, or another pandemic—would other countries step up? Probably, but with caveats. Historically, allies have rallied when the U.S. is in genuine need. After 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time ever, and countries like Canada and the U.K. were quick to offer support. During Hurricane Katrina, over 90 nations pledged aid, including unlikely players like Cuba and Venezuela. Even now, with all the bridge-burning, practical self-interest and residual goodwill would likely prompt some response. The U.K. and Japan, still tethered by deep military and economic ties, would almost certainly step in. Canada and Mexico, despite trade wars, can’t afford to let their neighbor collapse—geography alone ensures that. NATO might grumble, but they’d still show up, if only to preserve the alliance’s credibility.

That said, the enthusiasm would be muted. Germany, France, and others in Europe are fed up with being treated like freeloaders, and they’re already pivoting toward greater EU autonomy. Denmark’s still salty about Greenland, and the “let’s annex Canada” quip didn’t exactly warm hearts in Ottawa. Developing nations might help, but only to the extent it scores them points or leverage. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? They’d either sit it out or exploit the chaos—don’t expect humanitarian rescues from that crew. The U.S. would get aid, but it’d be less “global solidarity” and more “bare minimum obligation.”

The endgame here is murky. Isolationism seems to be the vibe—Trump’s “America First” redux leans hard into doing it alone, consequences be damned. But it’s not pure withdrawal; there’s a pattern of favoring leaders who play to his ego over institutions that demand compromise. Russia gets a pass because Putin’s a “strong guy”; El Salvador’s Bukele gets a nod for the same reason. NATO? Too many cooks in the kitchen. Trade partners? Too needy. It’s less a genius strategy and more a gut-driven preference for bilateral flexing over multilateral slogging. The art of no deal, as you put it, isn’t about building something new—it’s about tearing down anything that doesn’t fit the script.

Are alliances doomed? Not yet, but they’re fraying. The U.S. still has clout—its economy, military, and cultural pull aren’t going anywhere fast. Products like Coca-Cola or iPhones aren’t suddenly trash because of Trump’s tweets. But goodwill’s eroding, and fast. The U.K. and Japan might hang on, but they’re not dumb—they’ll hedge with China or the EU if the U.S. keeps acting erratic. Canada and Mexico will grit their teeth and deal, but don’t expect warm fuzzies. Europe’s already talking “strategic autonomy” louder than ever. If this keeps up, the U.S. risks a world where it’s not isolated, but tolerated—less a leader, more a loud neighbor nobody fully trusts.

Could this just be a phase? Sure, administrations change, and Trump’s style isn’t permanent. But damage compounds. Decades-old alliances can survive a rough four years—they did it once already—but the longer this goes, the more countries start planning for a post-American reality. The U.S. isn’t out of friends yet, but it’s playing a dangerous game of seeing how many it can afford to lose.

 

Thank you for your detailed response and for the effort you put into writing all that. It adds useful editorial perspective.

11 minutes ago, Digitalbanana said:

Could this just be a phase? Sure, administrations change, and Trump’s style isn’t permanent. But damage compounds. Decades-old alliances can survive a rough four years—they did it once already—but the longer this goes, the more countries start planning for a post-American reality. The U.S. isn’t out of friends yet, but it’s playing a dangerous game of seeing how many it can afford to lose.

 

This is a point I’ve considered as well. The problem could resolve itself in a few years, but at what cost? How much of the damage would be reversible under a more positive administration, and how much would be permanent? I don’t think any of it would be truly irreversible, but once trust is lost, it’s incredibly difficult to rebuild. Many European countries, especially in the north, are very conservative in their decision-making. They don’t make quick, off-the-cuff choices the way some American administrations do. So once they change direction, it doesn't seem like they're going to change direction back so quickly, just because the wind suddenly starts blowing in a different way.

 

So even if there’s a significant political shift and a renewed stance on Europe and other allies, I’m not sure how many will be eager to return to the table right away. I suspect some goodwill could be permanently lost, and that’s not something you want to be dealing with in a crisis when you need allies willing to extend support beyond what’s strictly expected.

Folks should watch this video to see the damage Vance is doing to the US image/ foreign relationships, in this case,  with Denmark.

 

9 minutes ago, bannork said:

Folks should watch this video to see the damage Vance is doing to the US image/ foreign relationships, in this case,  with Denmark.

 

Thanks. I had seen that earlier. The things said by the former US ambassador to Denmark is exactly the kind of thing that makes you wonder about the loss of long-term alliances and how that can hurt you as a country in an isolationist world. The countries that try to operate in isolationism normally end up suffering quite a bit. Look at countries like North Korea, Myanmar, Iran, Venezuela, etc. 

1 hour ago, Harrisfan said:

Putin viewed Biden as pathetic. He was right.

Are you Edward Snowden, living in a dacha Putin provided? Otherwise I can't figure how you would know Putin's thoughts. Certainly I haven't seen any change in Putin's behavior since Biden left, except Putin is now talking about connecting Kaliningrad with mutha Russia.

 

If you are Eddy, be careful. When Edward Lee Howard's usefulness to Putin ran out, that Eddy fell down a flight of stairs in his Moscow home and died.

51 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Sorry for posting facts. Dems 20%. Trump 0.

I don't see how you can say Trump has anything to do with what has happened in the war yet. It's still on and a totally different war now than when Biden was in and when it started. It's not an American war with only the fact that America helped out with weapons, money and humanitarian aid. Korea is more involved as far as soldiers and fighting. You can't compare what's going on with what happened while Biden was in. There is less land to need taking, less soldiers to fight and a lot of weapons destroyed. If Trump stops the war anytime soon, the same thing could have happened with Biden or Pee Wee Herman in office. It's not a president's deal 100% as far as what happens in anything, as Congress has their say.

34 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

It's called Trump hatred. You have it bad. Try looking up facts on Ukraine.

 

US doesnt need NATO.

 

Btw egg prices down 48% 

The US does need Nato and every other country it can work with, as all countries have something others can use, and vice versa. Alienating others is a huge mistake.

42 minutes ago, bannork said:

Folks should watch this video to see the damage Vance is doing to the US image/ foreign relationships, in this case,  with Denmark.

 

In this Video Vance acknowledges Denmark past military assistance and sacrifices

What about the many Danes who lost their lives in the war on terror fighting alongside the United States?" Well look we obviously honor the sacrifice of our Danish friends in the war on terror 20
years ago just as for example the French honor the sacrifice of Americans in Normandy 80 years ago But recognizing that there are important security partnerships in the past does not mean that we can't have disagreements with allies in the present about how to preserve our shared security for the future And that's what this is about

 

2 hours ago, Terrance8812 said:

Does the U.S. Even Have Real Allies Anymore Under Trump 2.0?

Yes.

There's some interesting stuff in this video that explains what Trump is doing.

The tariffs are a tactic to bring countries to the negotiating table, according to this analyst.

 

 

Well there are a few diehard MM'S on AN.

Not very smart ones,you know the uneducated.

1 hour ago, BLMFem said:

He's averaging 100 posts a day. I guess that's his whole life now. Sad.

the fruit cake is a woman,    She was found out a few weeks back now

We got Poland, Finland, Israel, Japan, Philippines, South Korea.

 

That should do.

10 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

We got Poland, Finland, Israel, Japan, Philippines, South Korea.

 

That should do.

Lol.