6 ms·

This shows how much trust in the US has declined due to Trump. Netherlands is not the only or first country to do this, other countries have started this too.

by jmclnx 15d ago

appleappleapple 15d ago
And this lost trust will not suddenly reappear when he leaves office. He has damaged our reputation for a generation
- TalkingCodeMonk 15d ago
  [flagged]
- kingleopold 15d ago
  No it's not simple to call "he" did this. WH people, half? of the country supporting him for 2nd time, and wealthy people that donated so much too, it's never "he". Nothing big like that is one persons responsibility. Actions have cons. ? All elected and supported, especially AFTER how he and his supports lead the so many extra deaths in covid. I know your media does not bring facts but truth is out there.
  - andsoitis 15d ago
    Voters cannot be held accountable for all the specific things the person they elected do. That much should be self-evident.
    - deleted 15d ago
      [deleted]
    - dhosek 15d ago
      He’s doing exactly what he said he would do when he ran. People who voted for him can very much be held accountable.
      - AnimalMuppet 15d ago
        When he ran, did he say that he'd make tariff rates bounce around like a kangaroo on speed? No, I don't think he did. Did he say that he'd threaten to annex Canada and Greenland? Not that I recall. Did he say that he'd start a war with Iran? No, I'm pretty sure he said "No new wars." Look, he's a loose cannon. Everyone who voted for him should have known that. But no, he's not doing "exactly what he said he would do when he ran". Some of what he's doing is what he said, and some is completely contradictory to what he said. (Credit where due: I stole the "kangaroo on speed" line from an unpublished short story. Don't remember the author, or I'd give them credit by name.)
        triceratops 15d ago
        Is this sarcasm?
        mylies43 15d ago
        So what? None of this is a surprise at all, if his voters fell for his "president of peace" bit then thats on them, at minimum they KNEW they were voting for a loose cannon who had no morals, cared about himself, insulted everyone around him, had terrible monetary and international policy... He bank rupted CASINOS for gods sake. They had every sign the 2nd time around, anyone who voted for him and regrets it now mainly does so because his bad choices are now personally affecting them lets not get it twisted. They were all happy as long as "others" got owned and not them
        pebble 15d ago
        If you found anything he did surprising you haven’t been paying attention to him at all.
        haunter 15d ago
        https://www.project2025.observer/en https://www.project2025.observer/en
      - andsoitis 15d ago
        > People who voted for him can very much be held accountable. Can you give an example of how, in practice, it would work to hold millions of voters accountable for what their elected representative does? Worth picking not just Trump, but let's say a few other Presidents around the world, including someone you voted for.
    - tgv 15d ago
      If they could have known or suspected those things, then yes, they bear the responsibility. And Trump's intentions were there for all to see.
      - andsoitis 15d ago
        > If they could have known or suspected those things, then yes, they bear the responsibility. In a situation like this, I like to do a thought experiment where I replace "Trump" with "Republican voter" in a headline or a story to see whether that idea holds up.
        tgv 14d ago
        That doesn't make sense. People let other people do the dirty work. Your imaginary Republican voter may or may not be capable of some action, but if that person voted for the persons executing that action, he or she cannot disclaim responsibility for it (unless truly misled, of course). You cannot disconnect yourself of consequences you helped set in motion.
    - ben_w 15d ago
      Anyone can be held accountable for things they are responsible for, the question is how they'll react to being held thusly.
      - andsoitis 15d ago
        > Anyone can be held accountable for things they are responsible for, the question is how they'll react to being held thusly. Voters are responsible for selecting representatives, but they are not responsible for running things and making the kinds of decisions that elected officials need to and do make.
    - exe34 15d ago
      What if they knew what they were voting for?
    - maigret 15d ago
      That’s the definition of democracy. Of course voting is significant and has consequences.
      - andsoitis 15d ago
        > That’s the definition of democracy. In a democracy, it is the elected officials, who are meant to represent the voter, that are held accountable. Not the voter. > Of course voting is significant and has consequences. Tautology but also not relevant. How do you propose the voter be held accountable?
        megagpt3 15d ago
        The elected official is held accountable if he doesn't do what the voters want. This one is doing what his voters want, so there's nothing to hold him accountable for.
    - c-linkage 15d ago
      Voters can be held accountable; he demonstrated exactly what he was the first time in office and then people voted for him again.
    - basisword 15d ago
      If you vote for a man that thinks he can "grab women by the pussy" because he's famous, and then you vote for him AGAIN, you should be held accountable for everything he does. It's patently obvious he's an absolutely awful person and completely untrustworthy.
    - buttercraft 15d ago
      You might have a better point if the elected person hadn't made such a big show of following "mandates" from the voters. You can't have it both ways.
  - wartywhoa23 15d ago
    The legend about the sole man in charge has been carefully crafted and cultivated for ages, but it's never the puppet and always puppet masters in this clown show.
  - gwbas1c 15d ago
    Sadly, the way people vote is more complicated than you might believe. Trump is the symptom of malfunctioning system that doesn't give people good options in the ballot box.
    - rootusrootus 15d ago
      That explains how he got almost half the votes on election night, but it does not explain the 1/3 that still to this day support him 100%. There is a pretty substantial underlying problem in play and Trump is the symptom, but the problem is deeper than a malfunctioning political system.
      - lokar 15d ago
        It is almost unheard of in the US for an elected politician to poll lower than 30%, it seems to be a floor. This is for both parties, and all sorts of terrible behavior.
        SideburnsOfDoom 15d ago
        > almost unheard of in the US for an elected politician to poll lower than 30%, it seems to be a floor Alan Keyes apparently set the floor at 27%, which is not far below 30% > Obama vs. Alan Keyes. ... Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_Senate_elec... And lizardman's Constant is 4% https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lizardman%27s_Constant https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lizardman%27s_Constant
        BoggleOhYeah 15d ago
        To drive that home, Alan Keyes got to 27% by - running against a charismatic Obama - being a last minute insert when Jack Ryan was caught in a sex scandal (who was already fighting an uphill battle with sharing a last name with the corrupt former governor) - being a carpetbagger (he didn't live in Illinois at any point until running for senate) - running as a hard-line social conservative in a state where the GOP is torn between appealing to suburban Chicago fiscal conservatives and downstate Illinois social conservatives
  - appleappleapple 15d ago
    Totally valid correction, thanks !
  - verelo 15d ago
    This! I get frustrated when i hear folks in the US claim Trump has failed them. You failed yourselves. The system is falling apart and barely half of people turn up to participate in elections? What are the rest of us expected to take away from this? Apathy is what I take away from it, and that does not earn my trust.
  - lokar 15d ago
    Not half the country. Almost half of the people who voted.
    - Laurel1234 15d ago
      [dead]
    - _whiteCaps_ 15d ago
      IMO if you don't vote, you're tacitly agreeing with whoever gets voted into office. (Although US voter suppression weakens this argument)
      - toast0 15d ago
        That's reasonable enough, but you have to consider it in the context that we don't vote for president, we vote for state electors to vote for president. If you live in a 'safe' state, tacitly agreeing with your state's electors doesn't mean tacitly agreeing with the electoral college result.
        lotsofpulp 15d ago
        If you can’t be bothered to make your disapproval seen at least once every 4 years, then I consider it a tacit approval. So that actually makes 2/3 of Americans in support of Trump’s brand of America.
      - rdm_blackhole 15d ago
        I disagree with your take. You have the right to not vote when you disagree with all parties running. In fact, from a moral point of view voting for the lesser evil is highly objectionable because you are voting for someone who you do not even support just so that another person you support even less does not get elected. Its perfectly fine to say, I don't agree with either and I am going to sit this one out otherwise you end up in weird political dynamics that you can see playing out in real time in France for example.
        15d ago
- wccrawford 15d ago
  And I'd argue that it should. He opened the door, and I find it very, very unlikely that either side will close it after this. Dems and Reps will both use this to take control in ways that would have been unthinkable prior to Trump's first election. The only way to restore any measure of that trust would be to pass laws that prevent this kind of abuse, and there's no way that politicians will give up power they've gained.
  - bluealienpie 15d ago
    They had the laws to stop him but since congress stopped legislating, it gave the supreme courts wide discretion to approve executive actions. Strong executive isn’t a flaw of the system, it’s the inevitable consequence of years of media illiteracy and vast sums of money in politics enabled by citizens united.
  - unethical_ban 15d ago
    The ideal would be that a new president is elected who uses current powers to reverse/rebuild what Trump has torn down and have their "one big bill" that Congress seems to pull off per president be a reforms package that locks in additional checks and legislative powers against the Executive. The Unitary Executive theory is the most dangerous attack on our Constitution in a long time. On the other hand, a right-wing Supreme Court may try to block any reforms that check the Executive. The Legislature's ultimate oversight power of the Exec is impeachment, and they have decided that no amount of corruption or crime or destruction should be checked as long as it "feels right".
  - toast0 15d ago
    Passed laws don't seem very constraining. Between simple disregard and disregard plus eventual compliance after lengthy court review, there's a lot of time spent under unlawful orders and regulations. There's no personal liability for (most?) of these unlawful actions and Trump doesn't seem to care about continuity of government or having a legacy of doing unlawful things. Impeachment could be a check on his power, but impeachment is a kangaroo court with a political jury, so he would need to piss off a lot more Republican senators than he has. A few presidental impeachments over unlawful acts ending in conviction would change future behavior. But it seems unlikely that we'll get there.
- petre 15d ago
  Trust in the US started to decline dating back in the Obama era when they listened to Merkel's phone etc. Trump has finally eroded what was left of it. Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe are still trying to keep a good relationship with thd US regardless, because they don't want to lose US support due to Trump's whims… err transactional diplomacy.
  - pvaldes 14d ago
    The weapons of mass destruction happened much before Obama
mikewarot 15d ago
[flagged]
- watwut 15d ago
  It is result of long term conservative project. And somehow you managed to blame non-conservatives for it. Trump is a cause of destruction. He is literally making those decisions. He is to blame. Trump and project 2025 are what republicans and conservatives were trying to achieve for years and years. Again, it hapened intentionally. But noooooo, must blame Obama. Anyone except directly responsable organizations and people.
  - mikewarot 15d ago
    There are always insane people waiting with a plan, its the job of government, and politicians to keep them at bay. [1,2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
    - watwut 14d ago
      People pushing for project 2025 are conservative politicians and republicans. They were in government the whole time. And they were in government because conservatives and republicans want that plan. They are not some kind of insane people outside of politics and government. They are literally the republican party.
      - mikewarot 12d ago
        I get that the Project 2025 is an evil plot, but that's missing the existing duopoly that allows the Donor class, and their alliances, both foreign and domestic, to override the will of the people. Even if every single Republican got voted out, the rot is still there, just wearing the other hat.
- graemep 15d ago
  Interesting. I am always suspicious of "great man" explanations of history and the same applies to current events - not that individual choices do not matter, but they are constrained and influenced by bigger social forces. Something similar happened in the UK, as the major parties moved towards a consensus as they both went after critical centrist voters (because the left and right voters were not going anywhere else - at the time anyway).
retired 15d ago
In the end it is all about money. Putin killed hundreds of EU citizens and we are still buying his gas, oil, uranium and fertilizer. Trump can bomb cities in Europe and we would trade with the US. I doubt we will ever fully separate from the US.
- pvaldes 14d ago
  > Trump can bomb cities in Europe and we would trade with the US This is the same level of delusion that: And Iran will never dare to close the strait.

This shows how much trust in the US has declined due to Trump. Netherlands is not the only or first country to do this, other countries have started this too.

by jmclnx 15d ago

This shows how much trust in the US has declined due to Trump. Netherlands is not the only or first country to do this, other countries have started this too.

appleappleapple 15d ago

And this lost trust will not suddenly reappear when he leaves office. He has damaged our reputation for a generation

TalkingCodeMonk 15d ago
[flagged]
kingleopold 15d ago
No it's not simple to call "he" did this. WH people, half? of the country supporting him for 2nd time, and wealthy people that donated so much too, it's never "he". Nothing big like that is one persons responsibility. Actions have cons. ? All elected and supported, especially AFTER how he and his supports lead the so many extra deaths in covid. I know your media does not bring facts but truth is out there.
- andsoitis 15d ago
  Voters cannot be held accountable for all the specific things the person they elected do. That much should be self-evident.
  - deleted 15d ago
    [deleted]
  - dhosek 15d ago
    He’s doing exactly what he said he would do when he ran. People who voted for him can very much be held accountable.
    - AnimalMuppet 15d ago
      When he ran, did he say that he'd make tariff rates bounce around like a kangaroo on speed? No, I don't think he did. Did he say that he'd threaten to annex Canada and Greenland? Not that I recall. Did he say that he'd start a war with Iran? No, I'm pretty sure he said "No new wars." Look, he's a loose cannon. Everyone who voted for him should have known that. But no, he's not doing "exactly what he said he would do when he ran". Some of what he's doing is what he said, and some is completely contradictory to what he said. (Credit where due: I stole the "kangaroo on speed" line from an unpublished short story. Don't remember the author, or I'd give them credit by name.)
      - triceratops 15d ago
        Is this sarcasm?
      - mylies43 15d ago
        So what? None of this is a surprise at all, if his voters fell for his "president of peace" bit then thats on them, at minimum they KNEW they were voting for a loose cannon who had no morals, cared about himself, insulted everyone around him, had terrible monetary and international policy... He bank rupted CASINOS for gods sake. They had every sign the 2nd time around, anyone who voted for him and regrets it now mainly does so because his bad choices are now personally affecting them lets not get it twisted. They were all happy as long as "others" got owned and not them
      - pebble 15d ago
        If you found anything he did surprising you haven’t been paying attention to him at all.
      - haunter 15d ago
        https://www.project2025.observer/en https://www.project2025.observer/en
    - andsoitis 15d ago
      > People who voted for him can very much be held accountable. Can you give an example of how, in practice, it would work to hold millions of voters accountable for what their elected representative does? Worth picking not just Trump, but let's say a few other Presidents around the world, including someone you voted for.
  - tgv 15d ago
    If they could have known or suspected those things, then yes, they bear the responsibility. And Trump's intentions were there for all to see.
    - andsoitis 15d ago
      > If they could have known or suspected those things, then yes, they bear the responsibility. In a situation like this, I like to do a thought experiment where I replace "Trump" with "Republican voter" in a headline or a story to see whether that idea holds up.
      - tgv 14d ago
        That doesn't make sense. People let other people do the dirty work. Your imaginary Republican voter may or may not be capable of some action, but if that person voted for the persons executing that action, he or she cannot disclaim responsibility for it (unless truly misled, of course). You cannot disconnect yourself of consequences you helped set in motion.
  - ben_w 15d ago
    Anyone can be held accountable for things they are responsible for, the question is how they'll react to being held thusly.
    - andsoitis 15d ago
      > Anyone can be held accountable for things they are responsible for, the question is how they'll react to being held thusly. Voters are responsible for selecting representatives, but they are not responsible for running things and making the kinds of decisions that elected officials need to and do make.
  - exe34 15d ago
    What if they knew what they were voting for?
  - maigret 15d ago
    That’s the definition of democracy. Of course voting is significant and has consequences.
    - andsoitis 15d ago
      > That’s the definition of democracy. In a democracy, it is the elected officials, who are meant to represent the voter, that are held accountable. Not the voter. > Of course voting is significant and has consequences. Tautology but also not relevant. How do you propose the voter be held accountable?
      - megagpt3 15d ago
        The elected official is held accountable if he doesn't do what the voters want. This one is doing what his voters want, so there's nothing to hold him accountable for.
  - c-linkage 15d ago
    Voters can be held accountable; he demonstrated exactly what he was the first time in office and then people voted for him again.
  - basisword 15d ago
    If you vote for a man that thinks he can "grab women by the pussy" because he's famous, and then you vote for him AGAIN, you should be held accountable for everything he does. It's patently obvious he's an absolutely awful person and completely untrustworthy.
  - buttercraft 15d ago
    You might have a better point if the elected person hadn't made such a big show of following "mandates" from the voters. You can't have it both ways.
- wartywhoa23 15d ago
  The legend about the sole man in charge has been carefully crafted and cultivated for ages, but it's never the puppet and always puppet masters in this clown show.
- gwbas1c 15d ago
  Sadly, the way people vote is more complicated than you might believe. Trump is the symptom of malfunctioning system that doesn't give people good options in the ballot box.
  - rootusrootus 15d ago
    That explains how he got almost half the votes on election night, but it does not explain the 1/3 that still to this day support him 100%. There is a pretty substantial underlying problem in play and Trump is the symptom, but the problem is deeper than a malfunctioning political system.
    - lokar 15d ago
      It is almost unheard of in the US for an elected politician to poll lower than 30%, it seems to be a floor. This is for both parties, and all sorts of terrible behavior.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 15d ago
        > almost unheard of in the US for an elected politician to poll lower than 30%, it seems to be a floor Alan Keyes apparently set the floor at 27%, which is not far below 30% > Obama vs. Alan Keyes. ... Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_Senate_elec... And lizardman's Constant is 4% https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lizardman%27s_Constant https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lizardman%27s_Constant
        BoggleOhYeah 15d ago
        To drive that home, Alan Keyes got to 27% by - running against a charismatic Obama - being a last minute insert when Jack Ryan was caught in a sex scandal (who was already fighting an uphill battle with sharing a last name with the corrupt former governor) - being a carpetbagger (he didn't live in Illinois at any point until running for senate) - running as a hard-line social conservative in a state where the GOP is torn between appealing to suburban Chicago fiscal conservatives and downstate Illinois social conservatives
- appleappleapple 15d ago
  Totally valid correction, thanks !
- verelo 15d ago
  This! I get frustrated when i hear folks in the US claim Trump has failed them. You failed yourselves. The system is falling apart and barely half of people turn up to participate in elections? What are the rest of us expected to take away from this? Apathy is what I take away from it, and that does not earn my trust.
- lokar 15d ago
  Not half the country. Almost half of the people who voted.
  - Laurel1234 15d ago
    [dead]
  - _whiteCaps_ 15d ago
    IMO if you don't vote, you're tacitly agreeing with whoever gets voted into office. (Although US voter suppression weakens this argument)
    - toast0 15d ago
      That's reasonable enough, but you have to consider it in the context that we don't vote for president, we vote for state electors to vote for president. If you live in a 'safe' state, tacitly agreeing with your state's electors doesn't mean tacitly agreeing with the electoral college result.
      - lotsofpulp 15d ago
        If you can’t be bothered to make your disapproval seen at least once every 4 years, then I consider it a tacit approval. So that actually makes 2/3 of Americans in support of Trump’s brand of America.
    - rdm_blackhole 15d ago
      I disagree with your take. You have the right to not vote when you disagree with all parties running. In fact, from a moral point of view voting for the lesser evil is highly objectionable because you are voting for someone who you do not even support just so that another person you support even less does not get elected. Its perfectly fine to say, I don't agree with either and I am going to sit this one out otherwise you end up in weird political dynamics that you can see playing out in real time in France for example.
      - 15d ago
wccrawford 15d ago
And I'd argue that it should. He opened the door, and I find it very, very unlikely that either side will close it after this. Dems and Reps will both use this to take control in ways that would have been unthinkable prior to Trump's first election. The only way to restore any measure of that trust would be to pass laws that prevent this kind of abuse, and there's no way that politicians will give up power they've gained.
- bluealienpie 15d ago
  They had the laws to stop him but since congress stopped legislating, it gave the supreme courts wide discretion to approve executive actions. Strong executive isn’t a flaw of the system, it’s the inevitable consequence of years of media illiteracy and vast sums of money in politics enabled by citizens united.
- unethical_ban 15d ago
  The ideal would be that a new president is elected who uses current powers to reverse/rebuild what Trump has torn down and have their "one big bill" that Congress seems to pull off per president be a reforms package that locks in additional checks and legislative powers against the Executive. The Unitary Executive theory is the most dangerous attack on our Constitution in a long time. On the other hand, a right-wing Supreme Court may try to block any reforms that check the Executive. The Legislature's ultimate oversight power of the Exec is impeachment, and they have decided that no amount of corruption or crime or destruction should be checked as long as it "feels right".
- toast0 15d ago
  Passed laws don't seem very constraining. Between simple disregard and disregard plus eventual compliance after lengthy court review, there's a lot of time spent under unlawful orders and regulations. There's no personal liability for (most?) of these unlawful actions and Trump doesn't seem to care about continuity of government or having a legacy of doing unlawful things. Impeachment could be a check on his power, but impeachment is a kangaroo court with a political jury, so he would need to piss off a lot more Republican senators than he has. A few presidental impeachments over unlawful acts ending in conviction would change future behavior. But it seems unlikely that we'll get there.
petre 15d ago
Trust in the US started to decline dating back in the Obama era when they listened to Merkel's phone etc. Trump has finally eroded what was left of it. Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe are still trying to keep a good relationship with thd US regardless, because they don't want to lose US support due to Trump's whims… err transactional diplomacy.
- pvaldes 14d ago
  The weapons of mass destruction happened much before Obama

mikewarot 15d ago

[flagged]

watwut 15d ago
It is result of long term conservative project. And somehow you managed to blame non-conservatives for it. Trump is a cause of destruction. He is literally making those decisions. He is to blame. Trump and project 2025 are what republicans and conservatives were trying to achieve for years and years. Again, it hapened intentionally. But noooooo, must blame Obama. Anyone except directly responsable organizations and people.
- mikewarot 15d ago
  There are always insane people waiting with a plan, its the job of government, and politicians to keep them at bay. [1,2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
  - watwut 14d ago
    People pushing for project 2025 are conservative politicians and republicans. They were in government the whole time. And they were in government because conservatives and republicans want that plan. They are not some kind of insane people outside of politics and government. They are literally the republican party.
    - mikewarot 12d ago
      I get that the Project 2025 is an evil plot, but that's missing the existing duopoly that allows the Donor class, and their alliances, both foreign and domestic, to override the will of the people. Even if every single Republican got voted out, the rot is still there, just wearing the other hat.
graemep 15d ago
Interesting. I am always suspicious of "great man" explanations of history and the same applies to current events - not that individual choices do not matter, but they are constrained and influenced by bigger social forces. Something similar happened in the UK, as the major parties moved towards a consensus as they both went after critical centrist voters (because the left and right voters were not going anywhere else - at the time anyway).

retired 15d ago

In the end it is all about money. Putin killed hundreds of EU citizens and we are still buying his gas, oil, uranium and fertilizer. Trump can bomb cities in Europe and we would trade with the US. I doubt we will ever fully separate from the US.

pvaldes 14d ago
> Trump can bomb cities in Europe and we would trade with the US This is the same level of delusion that: And Iran will never dare to close the strait.