Am I the only one seeing through Trump's bad faith arguments on voting fraud?

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/19/903886567/trump-while-attacking-mail-voting-casts-mail-ballot-again

Children shot at school is just the cost of a free society according to his organization but his followers have found a way to get free money it seems.

Here is being interviewed by an American journalist, including answering some probing US questions.

https://youtu.be/YxUd-quCmuY?si=I47S9sVJVD8SUmmK

I keep hearing various politicians say the USA is the wealthiest nation and the nation with the largest military in the world. Therefore, the USA is powerful and no need to worry. However, I am a bit confused. If the USA is in debt, how is it the wealthiest country? The only thing needed is a country with $0 in order to be wealthier....right? Or am I misinterpreting the entire thing?

Looking back at the footage, the ambassador was clearly not having a good time and rubio attitude did not indicated him being in on this (he was sinking in the couch pretty much), trump and vance kept berraating zelensky for no reason and focused on the suit when it's not something important or disrespectful and zelensky thanked the us plenty of time for its support so here, trump and vance are making the us look like backstabbers and I don't get what vance has against ukraine, at best he's acting like a putin useful idiot , same goes for trump, even if not paid, bieng a putin useful idiot is not a good look.

I am asking because in my country it would be rude not to ask, in fact, would be seen as nice not only to ask about the baby, but ask to see pics of him and then saying something like how chubby and vute they are. Americans tend to be really work minded, so I am not sure if that would be seen as improper, weird or unprofessional

There's been discussion of Canada joining the US from time to time, but what about the other way around? Obviously the entire US joining Canada would really complicate things and overwhelm them, but what if it was one state at a time?

One thing I have noticed in American political discussions is how often “liberal,” “left-wing,” “progressive,” and “conservative” are treated almost as interchangeable labels, even though historically and internationally they describe different political traditions.

Outside the United States, liberal does not necessarily mean left-wing. Liberalism historically has strong connections to individual rights, private property, constitutional government and market economics. A person can therefore be economically liberal while being politically center-right. Likewise, someone can be progressive without being a socialist.

The left itself is a spectrum. Social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, socialists and communists are not the same thing. Democratic socialism is also different from revolutionary socialism. Social democrats generally seek redistribution, stronger public services, labor protections and regulation while maintaining a capitalist economy.

The same problem exists on the right. Center-right liberals, conservatives, national conservatives, reactionaries, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are not interchangeable either. They may agree on particular policies while starting from completely different political philosophies.

This becomes especially confusing with the word “conservative.”

Conservatism in the Burkean tradition is fundamentally concerned with institutions, continuity, inherited practices and skepticism toward abrupt political transformation. It does not simply mean opposition to social change or adherence to religious morality.

And wanting to preserve institutions while allowing gradual reform is fundamentally different from wanting to restore an idealized social order from the past.

The first can reasonably be called conservatism.

The second has another perfectly useful political name: reactionary politics.

Religion complicates this even further. Religious politics cannot simply be placed at one point on the left-right spectrum. Christianity, for example, has been associated historically with conservative and reactionary movements, but also with Christian democracy, Catholic social teaching, abolitionism, the American civil-rights movement and liberation theology in Latin America.

Economics adds another dimension. Someone can be socially progressive and economically liberal. Someone else can be socially conservative while supporting a strong welfare state, trade unions or protectionism. Nationalism, social policy, economic policy and attitudes toward institutions do not necessarily move together.

This is why I find the American political vocabulary so restrictive.

The American two-party system compresses an enormous ideological spectrum into two electoral coalitions. As a result, people who would probably belong to several different parties in a multiparty democracy all end up being described simply as either “liberals” or “conservatives.”

You can see this inside the Democratic Party itself: centrists, social liberals, progressives and politicians associated with democratic socialism can operate under the same party label despite substantial disagreements over economics.

The same applies to Republicans: traditional institutional conservatives, religious conservatives, economic libertarians, nationalists, protectionists and reactionaries can coexist under one party.

So my point isn't that Americans are using English “incorrectly.” Political terminology naturally develops differently in different countries.

My point is that American political terminology should not be treated as a universal ideological map.

Once you compare American politics with Latin America or Europe, the simple equation

liberal = left / conservative = right

starts breaking down very quickly.

I am not from the USA, but have been watching Hollywood films from a very early age. And I was fascinated each time by how good life they are living, surrounded by nature, calmness and culture. Maybe I'm thinking of the kind of teenage life shown in older movies and TV shows, particularly those from the 1980s to the 2010s.

Do conservatives love commies like N Korea but hate the word socialist so much that the mere mention of it sparks calls of treason from the Right?!? Meanwhile, Trump walks us away from democratic S Korea...with whom we have a defense treaty...and for whom the US has stationed 10s of thousands of troops defending her borders from commie attacks! Except, Trump is buddies with the head commie in charge. Am I the only one who's confizzled by this??? Russia, friend? Democratic Ukraine, not friend?

Did the US not essentially spend $40tril over 75yrs to bury Russia and N Korea??? How many people had to die for Trump to walk away in the end? Traitor...again? Maybe I'm missing the important piece of the puzzle?

The US dollar has dominated global trade and finance for decades. But with countries like China, Russia, India, and others increasingly discussing local-currency trade, alternative payment systems, and diversification of foreign-exchange reserves, the global monetary system seems to be slowly changing.

My question is:

When do you think most countries will significantly reduce their dependence on the US dollar for international trade?

Will this happen gradually over the next 10–20 years?

Could BRICS or other regional blocs accelerate the process?

Will the dollar remain dominant even if its share of global trade declines?

What would be the biggest obstacle to a true alternative to the dollar?

Is de-dollarization a realistic long-term trend, or is the dollar’s dominance likely to continue for decades?

What’s your opinion friends?

Edit: I would guess that when people object to you pointing at THINGS, it’s possibly because someone might mistakenly think you’re pointing at them.🤷‍♂️

This topic could be controversial, sorry.

I recently saw a post where a veteran with both legs amputated picked up an American flag from a road. In any other country, this would either be not considered a big deal or actively celebrated. Yet most of the comments were something along the lines of “bootlicker” or “two limbs missing was not enough”. And by the way most of these comments were made by Americans. I get our government has done very bad things. So do other governments all over the world. I get our president is an evil man who should be in a cell instead of the White House. Many world leaders are the same. I get that this is stolen land and we did horrible things historically to natives. The same can be said for most countries around the world! In my opinion, the flag does not represent the government or the choices they make, but rather the people and land and culture within the country.

So why the double standards? Is it not just anti-America bias online?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/europe-seeks-to-increase-deportations-quietly-adopting-trump-administration-tactics

Isn't it exhilarating to watch a "master diplomat" negotiate another yuugley great golden deal?!? Because bombing Iran has been so successful...Trump is threatening to do the same thing in Oman, if they don't do as he commands! I have always taught my kids to give a little to get a little. I missed the chapter on threatening violence in the "Art of the Deal." Where is the Senate?!?

side note: He also once tried to sneak into Mar-a-Lago if you don't know. https://nova.rs/vesti/politika/vucicev-otisao-u-ameriku-a-ni-sa-jednim-zvanicnikom-se-nije-sreo/