It's bringing back memories of our dismal global perception around 2006-2008. (Although this wasn't for "America is unwelcoming" reasons)
You cite the dismal perception from 2006-2008, but what changed? In 2008 Obama was elected and everything is new again and he won the Nobel. Did the country completely change in 2 years? Has it changed that much in 8?
Not really, that's why getting so riled up over singular negative events isn't worth your time. Things change fast, and countries have long histories. Germany and Japan were ruled by jingoist elites for centuries and just 80 years ago they were culling populations. Today they are examples of doing it right. Do we really believe 4 years of a bad leader is gonna flip centuries of progress?
It's an issue, yeah, but let's not overstate it because that' s not being honest with ourselves.
And you're right, in the grand scheme of things, it may not matter. But four years is a pretty long time in tech-timelines for other countries to start catching up to Silicon Valley's vibrancy.
Bush damaged US reputation way more than Trump, USA did recover. For entrepreneurs and talents, Canada, Germany or France just can't compete, especially France with a bureaucracy that will crush one's bones.
George W. Bush was in office for 8 years, Trump has been in office for 6 months. How can you realistically compare the two? I also don't understand the past tense. Trump is still a sitting President.
Has it? I'm pretty sure most of the country's (and let's be real, many other nations) currents problems are directly related to actions undertaken by Dubya and his despicable administration.
If we ignore illegal wars, Bush comes out ahead.
If we ignore the majority of what Trump says or Tweets, Trump comes out ahead.
I wish there were a metric for ignoramus, I suspect Trump would be fully one or two orders magnitude a bigger moron than Bush except when it comes to how to handle fellow con artists. He was apparently adept at handling the mob.
So far as I know, tweeting dumb shit is not yet a criminal offense.
I've suspected from the outset that four years of Trump would effectively amount to four years of stasis, with perhaps a chance of getting a conservative majority in the supreme court for the foreseeable future.
Thus, no matter how progressive or good-neighborly future administration policies are, allies now have to build in the risk that every 4 years there will be a 50:50 chance that those policies will be reversed and any agreements voided.
And with Trump's open imbecilic statements, it's like a switch went off in people's heads - "hey, they US is really not the benevolent/welcoming/whatever democracy it said it was!"
It will reduce it's importance a bit for the next decade. Leave it to Trump's successors to strike the final blows.
I don't know why the fuck you guys are talking about the US and Trump in this thread, btw.
Sadly I doubt this will be dependent on what he actually does vs other politicians. It's entirely about perception.
This Russia congressional hearing is getting 10x the amount of coverage than the CIA torture hearing - if that's any indication of perception vs national priorities.
The blatant criminality and anti-American behaviour by the CIA and the executive branch was far more obvious in that case going into the hearing. They openly destroyed 92 videos tapes of interrogations at a black site which would have provided direct evidence of abuse [1] which not a single person got punished for.
Yet Jeff Session refusing to answer a few questions about private conversations with Trump got more scrutiny than the CIA did when they refused to release a 10,000 page report on their torture practices, using the same legal basis as Sessions did citing executive privilege during Obama's administration.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_tapes_d...
No laws have been broken by Trump. Hillary Clinton & co. on the other hand have broken _many_ at an egregious level. Lynch and Mueller should similarly be under investigation for covering up crimes as well.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/87570147199986483...
Indeed, almost nothing authoritarian has emerged; he uses executive orders to implement policies because he doesn't have the votes to legislate it.
As for the lack of zeal for investigating the CIA, the reason should be obvious: very few Americans were the direct victims of it. That scandal would only be zealously pursued if there were no other noteworthy events happening.
It is "whataboutism" for me to point out the lack of Republican interest in the CIA case is similar to the lack of Republican interest in the Russian election interference investigation. I only make that point to underscore the lack of lawmaker interest in pursuing a mostly "suspicious foreigner" set of victims, not to claim some difference of virtue between the two political parties.
I agree with you that the CIA scandal is shocking and unacceptable. It is 1) morally wrong; 2) directly results in terrorist organization recruitment; 3) disrupts trade and political cooperation with other countries.
The things he wanted to do during his campaign that may have seemed credible: 1) Muslim ban, 2) Libel law strengthening, 3) Increased law enforcement action, "stop and frisk" policies. None of these lead to an authoritarian state, they just erode the Democratic norms of the Republic.
Trump just openly bashes everyone, like a complete moron.
Those of us even in Australia are wary now of travelling to the US because of (a) fear they maybe mistakenly detained, (b) having to turn over social media information and (c) visa problems at the arrival gate.
Places like Berlin, Amsterdam etc are looking far more interesting for startups because of the access to the European market and the sensible policies that seem to be enacted e.g. roaming.
I intended to visit China in the near future -- but I've booked a trip to Taiwan instead, almost entirely because Taiwan doesn't require me to get a visa.
Likewise, I can't see myself ever living in the US as long as I have access to free movement in Europe.
You still get a visa to enter Taiwan. It's just a "visa on arrival" as opposed to needing to obtain a visa prior to travel. Visa policies are reciprocal between countries. China and the US both charge citizens from each other's countries to visit for tourist purposes and that must be paid prior to travel. Tourist visa policies and immigrations polices have very little if anything to do with each other.
I think you might be short changing yourself if your only reason for not visiting mainland China is solely because they require a visa. It's less than a hundred bucks, it's basically a tourist tax. You likely won't regret it.
Sure -- 'doesn't require me to get a visa' as in I don't have to make a trip to an embassy or pay a fee.
I'm sure I'll visit China eventually, but for the sort of low-budget travelling I'm doing, an entry visa represents a not-insignificant amount of the total cost. It also makes things less flexible: as I understand, authorities must be notified of exact travel plans before you depart.
This isn't true. You are free to travel wherever and whenever you want in China provided you have a visa. Tibet might require a special approval but nowhere else. The visa is also good for 10 years. Also if you are a Westerner, hotels and taxis are a really good value in China. Lastly there are much better flight options into Beijing than there are into Taipei and so would more than offset the cost of the visa.
So far, none of those has happened and it remains to be seen if they will. If they don't, I don't expect a market decline, but just a smaller total cumulative growth since November that has nothing to do with Trump's election or the general agenda I outlined above.
Although this is a popular theory, mostly promoted by the people who don't want to pay taxes.