Image of the United States has plunged under Trump, survey shows

[williamgeorgeallen]

3 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

But you're dealing with somebody who doesn't understand that, so its easy to have some fun.  Watch this:

 

Hey CutiePi, did you know that Thailand is actually a much safer country for driving in, with its 24,237 traffic-related fatalities in 2016, compared to the USA which racked up an incredible 36,064.  And Libya is one of safest in the world with a paltry 4,554 deaths in 2016!

 

Of course remember that people who think this way are still allowed to vote, which underscores the importance of having at least a rudimentary education in mathematics.

 

 

check mate.

[janclaes47]

1 hour ago, IMA_FARANG said:

I have no use for Donald the fool.

I spent 5 years in Vietnam in the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1971, and the draft dodger Trump went to a Military school as a honor student at that time, but never even served one day in the U.S. military.

That fact tells me all I need to know about Donald the  fraudster  Trump.

 

 

 

 

I guess Obama, Clinton and Franklin D. Roosevelt were also big losers in your mind, because they also did no military service.

[Jingthing]

Glad you can see it is monotonous. That is all the bleating left keep doing. Calling anyone who backs Trump stupid. Going on and on how bad he is for the US. Everyday he is about to be impeached according to the media. There is a sh*tload of fake news out there. Nothing has stuck so far. I wonder why? The Dow seems to be doing OK for Americans. :)
America was heading down a PC path to self destruction same way that EU is going. Hopefully Trump can make a dent in that. The problem is not the 95% who are moderate, but the 5% who are hardliners. IS are an extremely small fraction of the world population but they are having a devastating impact and there rest of the world can't even wipe them out because of so much division. "Divide and conquer!" :)
 

trumpists not always stupid. Sometimes downright evil. The statistics are in. The fiction that trump was mainly elected because of economic concerns has been proven false. Actually the main reason was racism and xenophobia.

[Jingthing]

I guess Obama, Clinton and Franklin D. Roosevelt were also big losers in your mind, because they also did no military service.

trump faked a physical injury. Not equivalent. Total sleazeball con man. USA has elevated one of the worst possible people imaginable.

[Jingthing]

Bill Clinton wasn't running recently.

In any case trump is extremely bizarre. He lies more than any President in US history. His mind control fascist agenda involves trying to attack the value of truth and facts. Anything that does not praise the clown is fake news according to trumpist propaganda. This is very dangerous.

 

[Thakkar]

34 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

I guess Obama, Clinton and Franklin D. Roosevelt were also big losers in your mind, because they also did no military service.

 

Look, I know you Obama acolytes think the man can walk on water, but if he had managed to enlist and fight in Vietnam at age nine, that would've been a pretty neat trick. Becoming the first black president would've been quite the anticlimax.

 

T

 

[Jingthing]

It shouldn't be a requirement for presidents to be ex military. That in itself is not the problem with 45. It's pretty much his entire bizarre persona and background that is the problem.

[Jingthing]

Topic is 45. Image of the USA under Clinton and Obama was very decent. Under the insane clown it had tanked. He's a national disgrace and embarrassment.

[losworld]

Well all he has to do is do the opposite of countries like Germany and France and he will be doing the right thing. Of course you are loved abroad if you are giving up your borders as well as your manufacturing base to other countries and to boot spending like a drunken sailor to support NATO while others take a free ride. 

[Jingthing]

As far as the accusation of being a trump hater how is that a bad thing any more than being a Putin, Erdogan, Mussolini hater? For some atrocious political leaders hatred of them is entirely logical.

 

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, losworld said:

Well all he has to do is do the opposite of countries like Germany and France and he will be doing the right thing. Of course you are loved abroad if you are giving up your borders as well as your manufacturing base to other countries and to boot spending like a drunken sailor to support NATO while others take a free ride. 

France and Germany are both continuing with increased manufacturing output and inline with their agreed goals for financial contributions to NATO. Both France and Germany have re-introduced border controls. About time some people checked their facts as opposed to blindly believing Trump's misinformation campaigns.

[selftaopath]

22 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                             Because usually presidents are less popular at the end of their presidencies.  'the honeymoon is over' syndrome.  For that reason, the chart actually gives the advantage to Trump, because normally presidents have a higher popularity quotient at the start of their terms.  Trump is breaking trends.   He's wildly unpopular now (domestically and internationally), and it will only get worse for wear.   He's got nowhere to go but down.   He hasn't gained one fan since winning in November, while he's lost many.

Agree.... and yet he's starting his quest for re-election. lol lol Go figure.... I swear this guy is a total "nut job."

[selftaopath]

21 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Yet another biased anti-trump fake news story. But then again, if all you are fed by your media is libtard rhetoric, then many people will fall for it - until they see the truth.  Clearly this table below was not shown or discussed when talking about Obama - only how nice he looked and how smooth he sounded - which is all libtards care about. 

 

Did/does the economy get better under a Dem or Red?

[rijb]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

trumpists not always stupid. Sometimes downright evil. The statistics are in. The fiction that trump was mainly elected because of economic concerns has been proven false. Actually the main reason was racism and xenophobia.

What is the source of your statistics?

[Jingthing]

All you can do is name call. Nice. 

It was a factual post unless you don't agree that racism and xenophobia are evil.

[RobFord]

Get out from under that rock or are you just coming in from Mars?The U.S. will soon be economically playing second and third fiddle to China and India. It's a given. It can't compete with those countries on market size. The U.S. is done. 

Good point. And under the orange asshatchling it doesn't want to increase its market size through trade agreements.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[GaryB1263]

Yrs. He scares the shtt out of the socialist, thats for sure.

[RobFord]

No, your post said not all are stupid, implying those that are not stupid, are evil. You have become such a sad man since your idol lost. Get over it!

Actually trump supporters range from just stupid to stupid bastards.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201609/the-psychology-behind-donald-trumps-unwavering-support

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-the-science-of-blue-lies-may-explain-trumps-support/

http://londonwebnews.com/2017/06/13/right-wingers-less-intelligent-liberals-says-study/


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[rhodie]

1 minute ago, RobFord said:

 

Actually trump supporters range from just stupid to stupid bastards.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201609/the-psychology-behind-donald-trumps-unwavering-support

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-the-science-of-blue-lies-may-explain-trumps-support/

http://londonwebnews.com/2017/06/13/right-wingers-less-intelligent-liberals-says-study/


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Another name caller. What is it with the left that all they can do is say you are stupid. And add some statistics that anyone can fudge. Haha. Those same statisticians all said Trump would lose. Keep calling names if you have no basis to argue. 

Tell me why you have to resort to labels in your debates. Seems pretty racist. 

[Jingthing]

Sure thing dude. trump and his trumpists don't call names. Wow.

[RobFord]

Another name caller. What is it with the left that all they can do is say you are stupid. And add some statistics that anyone can fudge. Haha. Those same statisticians all said Trump would lose. Keep calling names if you have no basis to argue. 
Tell me why you have to resort to labels in your debates. Seems pretty racist. 

You obviously didn't read any of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[rhodie]

I think the image of the USA has been waning over time as other nations become more worldly and the survey just proves the downward trend. I hope this can be reversed, but I doubt it will happen any time soon.

[CutiePi]

7 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

sleight of hand? is the normal way to represent statics verses  population. 

It is ONE way to present statistical information. However, in this case, surely the most salient fact is the total amount of pollution being released per country...not a per capita figure as the problem is the aggregate pollution and not how much each person is emmitting.

[Thakkar]

7 minutes ago, CutiePi said:

It is ONE way to present statistical information. However, in this case, surely the most salient fact is the total amount of pollution being released per country...not a per capita figure as the problem is the aggregate pollution and not how much each person is emmitting.

 

You are right.

 

But an even more salient point is that while China is now the biggest emitter, it is doing more and at the highest level than any other country to curb its emissions.

 

The US on the other hand is rejecting—at the highest level—even the premise of the problem. While still being the second highest emitter.

 

Also, since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a hundred years and continues to affect climate, "aggregate" CO2 is still largely a US responsibility.

 

In any case, rather than apportioning blame, it is imperative that everyone work diligently together to address the clear and present danger. That was what the Paris Accord was about, the one Trump withdrew from.

 

T

[williamgeorgeallen]

19 minutes ago, CutiePi said:

It is ONE way to present statistical information. However, in this case, surely the most salient fact is the total amount of pollution being released per country...not a per capita figure as the problem is the aggregate pollution and not how much each person is emmitting.

nope. just blaming bigger countries that have bigger populations for the problem is a cop out. i hear this excuse used to pass the buck. all countries with a high per capita pollution rate need to start working on solving the problem.

[CutiePi]

4 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

You are right.

 

But an even more salient point is that while China is now the biggest emitter, it is doing more and at the highest level than any other country to curb its emissions.

 

The US on the other hand is rejecting—at the highest level—even the premise of the problem. While still being the second highest emitter.

 

Also, since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a hundred years and continues to affect climate, "aggregate" CO2 is still largely a US responsibility.

 

In any case, rather than apportioning blame, it is imperative that everyone work diligently together to address the clear and present danger. That was what the Paris Accord was about, the one Trump withdrew from.

 

T

Well, if you'll excuse the pun, Paris was nothing but a bunch of hot air...a set of voluntary non-binding commitments to reduce green-house gas emmissions (and in China's case, not until more than another decade out).

 

The fact is that the market is already doing more to reduce emmissions than a hundred big government confabs could ever do...witness the shale gas revolution reducing the need for coal burning in power plants. 

 

In addition, with or without Paris, with or without the Trump administration, there is nothing to stop individuals, cities, states, or businesses from reducing their carbon gas emmissions if they consider climate change an important issue. 

[Thakkar]

11 minutes ago, CutiePi said:

Well, if you'll excuse the pun, Paris was nothing but a bunch of hot air...a set of voluntary non-binding commitments to reduce green-house gas emmissions (and in China's case, not until more than another decade out).

 

The fact is that the market is already doing more to reduce emmissions than a hundred big government confabs could ever do...witness the shale gas revolution reducing the need for coal burning in power plants. 

 

In addition, with or without Paris, with or without the Trump administration, there is nothing to stop individuals, cities, states, or businesses from reducing their carbon gas emmissions if they consider climate change an important issue. 

It's true that the markets are addressing the emissions issue, and doing so more robustly than anyone thought possible when negotiations on the Paris Accord began.

 

However, as China, Germany and some other countries have shown, buy-in from the highest echelons of the government, can provide further boost to markets because markets respond to incentives, and governments are in a position to effect incentives.

 

Considering the catastrophe we might be facing, no effort, government or private, should be spared.

 

T

 

[rhodie]

12 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

It's true that the markets are addressing the emissions issue, and doing so more robustly than anyone thought possible when negotiations on the Paris Accord began.

 

However, as China, Germany and some other countries have shown, buy-in from the highest echelons of the government, can provide further boost to markets because markets respond to incentives, and governments are in a position to effect incentives.

 

Considering the catastrophe we might be facing, no effort, government or private, should be spared.

 

T

 

I agree with all of this and we should all be doing more. But quoting China all the time is really not helpful. Have you been? What they do and what they say are really not the same. And hard to monitor without being transparent. Try taking a picture of any sensitive area. Per capita is also just another stat. Take Australia who have high per capita, but are a still developing really to keep up with population growth.

[ilostmypassword]

44 minutes ago, CutiePi said:

Well, if you'll excuse the pun, Paris was nothing but a bunch of hot air...a set of voluntary non-binding commitments to reduce green-house gas emmissions (and in China's case, not until more than another decade out).

 

The fact is that the market is already doing more to reduce emmissions than a hundred big government confabs could ever do...witness the shale gas revolution reducing the need for coal burning in power plants. 

 

In addition, with or without Paris, with or without the Trump administration, there is nothing to stop individuals, cities, states, or businesses from reducing their carbon gas emmissions if they consider climate change an important issue. 

First off, China and India are already way ahead of where they promised to be at this point in time in reducing CO2 emissions.

As for the shale gas revolution, well, it creates less carbon dioxide than coal, but it's still putting it into the atmosphere.

As for there being nothing to stop state from doing it themselves...that's true.  But under Trump there will be nothing to encourage them either. So we will have a situation somewhat comparable to say people living on a river. There may be nothing to stop the people upstream from installing water pollution controls, but if they choose not to, the people downstream will suffer.

The problem with your position is that it takes no account of externalities and who's to pay for them.

[CutiePi]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, China and India are already way ahead of where they promised to be at this point in time in reducing CO2 emissions.

As for the shale gas revolution, well, it creates less carbon dioxide than coal, but it's still putting it into the atmosphere.

As for there being nothing to stop state from doing it themselves...that's true.  But under Trump there will be nothing to encourage them either. So we will have a situation somewhat comparable to say people living on a river. There may be nothing to stop the people upstream from installing water pollution controls, but if they choose not to, the people downstream will suffer.

The problem with your position is that it takes no account of externalities and who's to pay for them.

And you know this how...because China and India said so? In any case, the United States has already made greater percentage and over all reduction of green-house gasses than either of those countries and will continue to lead in this area BECAUSE it makes good economic and business sense...not because some unelected buereacrat issues some regulations.