Always-honest
Banned
Sanders
Probably Merkel.
Probably Merkel.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Who's currently the Leader of the Free World?
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
Bwahahahahah. American Exceptionalism crap no matter what, right mate?
Merkel is the most powerful Liberal voice in the world. That's about it. This Leader thing you Americans keep bringing up for some reason is complete nonsense.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
How can people say Trump when this country is less and less free with every passing day?
Imperfected
Member
Yes, entirely. The American people couldn't elect a leader who won the popular vote, haven't been able to prevent the continue push to destroy American health care despite having a massive public majority in favor of maintaining the ACA, and haven't been able to pressure the Republican majority in Congress to behave like decent human beings despite all the public opinion being against Trump.
The same standard that I applied to Trump applies here: you aren't a leader if no one actually follows you, and you don't have power if nothing you do achieves the desired results.
I didn't know the Constitution change once Trump came into office? Personally, my daily life routine is 99.9% the same. Sure, there are some differences between Democrat vs Republican leadership, but nothing that can't be reverse/change once the other party comes back into power. One side always seems to go hyperbole when the other party comes into power. I have been through enough elections that waiting 4-8 years is just part of the normal process.
PdotMichael
Banned
Congratulation for being part of the group who doesn't get the short stick on a daily base in the USA.
Frankfurter
Member
Way, way misleading to go by nominal GDP. The UK economy just got smaller by 25% or so within a year - except: it didn't...
Real GDP PPP: 1. China, 2. EU (incl. UK), 3. USA
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
Using nominal GDP really needs to stop. The only reason its being used seems to be that it makes the western economies look stronger than they are relative to developing economies.
PdotMichael
Banned
Using whatever form of GDP isn't even useful to determine the "leader".
Not just is the gap too small for that but they are dependent on each other, so it would even the opposite effect.
When Trump travelled through the world trying to get "deals" with various states they just laughed at him because world community > USA.
What the USA did in the past decades to bring their own interest with a large part of the world together.
It's sad how GAF doesn't get it.
Not just is the gap too small for that but they are dependent on each other, so it would even the opposite effect.
When Trump travelled through the world trying to get "deals" with various states they just laughed at him because world community > USA.
What the USA did in the past decades to bring their own interest with a large part of the world together.
It's sad how GAF doesn't get it.
As an American I really hate the "Leader of the Free World" bullshit. This isn't no damn Lord of The Rings or Harry Potter.
U.S is still technically the leader. The only one I can see having the ability to fill that shoe is China or Germany as they have the political influence and industry to do so.
Even though others are mocking Trump and have not left the Paris accords (which mind you is an exception since it is a world issue and isn't legally binding), they still feared to confront him about it. They tap dance around everything instead of going out and telling him to go fuck himself. If U.S truly wanted to make some of these countries budge, it really could.
Though I am not sure if I would then call it "the free world" at that point lol.
PdotMichael
Banned
Bizarro World?
John Kowalski
Banned
Lol
nephilimdj
Member
Its like when they found out CIA ran torture prisons in EU, EU was like "shit we cant touch USA", see Merkel wiretapping.
Aquavelvaman
Banned
Jeremy Corbyn
The term literally dates back to an american war propaganda film. It made little sense then and it makes even less sense now.
PdotMichael
Banned
You know what, I don't care about your powerfantasy.
I don't get your reference, I looked it up and it bought me to a DC comic, but I don't read DC comics lol.
Basically I was saying, when talking to Trump, they walk on a tightrope with fear of antagonizing him. Which I completely understand, but that shows just how much influence U.S have even with an idiot like Trump running it.
EDIT: I think I get what you are saying lol
No one person. I think it can be said that the UN, comprised of many leaders, succeeded in unifying the world under a single global vision of the future. Despite the challenges in working past differences both now and in future, the world (minus America) came together in a show of unity and collaboration against one of the greatest threats we face. While it can be said that our heinous nature got us to this potentially catastrophic point, it is the acknowledgment of this nature and the way in which we have unified to address it together is a showing of consciousness and self-awareness never before seen. We tackle climate change not as Chinese, Norwegian, or Frenchmen. Not as blacks, whites, or asians. For the first time ever as a species, we are together. We are Sapiens. Sapiens of Earth. It took a powerful and legitimate organization to pull it off. So the UN, and its leaders of Sapiens, are the leaders of the free world.
It's such a weird thing and i never heard of it outside of american media.
If no one else does, you can always pat yourself on the back.
What's the difference between nominal and real GDP?
Gangster Bastard
Member
It's Trump, unfortunately. The EU has got to step up it's game.
Real is adjusted for inflation.
Trumplestiltskin
Banned
No, stop.
GDP (PPP) accounts for lower price levels within a country. So China does well because it has lower prices for things like food and haircuts.
But if you were to convert the money into Yuan or USD or Euros you'd get the same nominal order. In terms of globally relevant costs (like military equipment, cutting edge technologies, major infrastructure) nominal will be what matters.
PPP is good to assess living standards, and by that measure on a per capita basis Botswana does better than China.
Raigan5088
Banned
It's the chemicals
Puppet Shadow
Member
Same
The Albatross
Member
It's Donald Trump, unfortunately, though being a "leader" of the free world does not mean that you're a good leader of the free world. If I had to choose the leader of the free world that I liked the most, who actively seeks the spread of liberal values abroad and who is a consequential voice in world relations, it would be Merkel.
But, the sorry fact is that when some event happens around the world, nobody turns to Canada to see what Canada's response is going to be. When Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and a handful of other Arab countries shut down relations with Qatar, very few people asked (and even fewer people cared) what Justin Trudeau was going to do about it. In fact if I have my timeline right, when that story broke about the burgeoning crisis in Qatar, Trudeau wasn't being asked about how Canada would step in to negotiate a draw down of hostilieis, but rather, how the kayaking was that day in Canada. This isn't a criticism of Trudeau at all, and at times I wish the United States could have a passive, secondary (or tertiary) role in international relations, but it's just the reality of post-World War II, post-Cold War foreign policy.
That isn't to say that the US is always up to the task. The US, in two consecutive administrations, has shirked from defending Democracy and liberalism abroad more often than it has defended democracy and liberalism. That's the fallout of GWB's errant foreign policy, where you're pursuing what you think is the easy enemy abroad and then failing to follow through when crisis emerge in other parts of the globe (That are probably more consequential than the battles you're choosing to fight). I'm mostly talking about American foreign policy when it comes to Putin's Russia over the last 15+ years, which the US has handled abysmally over the last 15 years, and now we're reaping what we've sowed.
If there is an American "leader" of the free world who I think is actually contributing to the spread of democracy and liberalism, it's...
Nikki Haley. And I would have never thought, in a thousand years, that I would have ever said that. But of Trump appointees, aside from maybe Gen. Mattis, she's the only person with a clear and consistent foreign policy perspective, and one that has actually criticized opponents of Democracy and liberalism, instead of cozying up to them like the Administration of her president.
At some point a disdain for American exceptionalism has to cede to the disdain of ignorance. It's a simple fact that in the overwhelming majority of international crisis, the world turns to what the US' response is first and it pivots on that response. It isn't always (or even usually as of the last 15 or 20 years) a good response, but despite being much closer geographically, when Putin Invades another European country, Merkel will probably again turn to the United States for what to do, as Germany did with Ukraine and Crimea. And that is for a anti-Democratic foe that is only 1500 Km from Berlin. If there is a democratic crisis in South East Asia, South America, or African countries (that don't have German populations), it's unlikely that Merkel would be involved in anything more than a secondary or tertiary role, beyond typical economic commitments of a G7 or G22 country. You don't have to be an American exceptionalist to recognize that the US is nearly always the most consequential actor in international relations around the world... And that doesn't mean that the choices are always good, or even lately mostly good, but the American president is the one that other leaders pivot on, not Merkel or any other European leader.
I was very optimistic about Emmanuel Macron, as the only French candidate who didn't seem in bed with Putin, but that quickly changed as soon as he became President of France and he was presented with a foreign policy dilemma. He's basically performed a 180 in the last 2 weeks. I wonder what figure the oil contract was that made him change his mind, just as Sarkozy, Berlusconi, and other central European leaders have turned towards Russia on.
As far as Bernie Sanders is concerned, I'm not sure if an isolationist who shares the same international economic perspective as Donald Trump -- another isolationist -- is really an effective leader of the free world. If he were president, he probably would have had to change is foreign policy outlook, but a lot of Sander's appeal is that he's inward looking at the United States which is very similar to Trump, and a contrast to, say, Hillary Clinton who was, at least 5 years ago, the second most influential American in international affairs.
But, the sorry fact is that when some event happens around the world, nobody turns to Canada to see what Canada's response is going to be. When Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and a handful of other Arab countries shut down relations with Qatar, very few people asked (and even fewer people cared) what Justin Trudeau was going to do about it. In fact if I have my timeline right, when that story broke about the burgeoning crisis in Qatar, Trudeau wasn't being asked about how Canada would step in to negotiate a draw down of hostilieis, but rather, how the kayaking was that day in Canada. This isn't a criticism of Trudeau at all, and at times I wish the United States could have a passive, secondary (or tertiary) role in international relations, but it's just the reality of post-World War II, post-Cold War foreign policy.
That isn't to say that the US is always up to the task. The US, in two consecutive administrations, has shirked from defending Democracy and liberalism abroad more often than it has defended democracy and liberalism. That's the fallout of GWB's errant foreign policy, where you're pursuing what you think is the easy enemy abroad and then failing to follow through when crisis emerge in other parts of the globe (That are probably more consequential than the battles you're choosing to fight). I'm mostly talking about American foreign policy when it comes to Putin's Russia over the last 15+ years, which the US has handled abysmally over the last 15 years, and now we're reaping what we've sowed.
If there is an American "leader" of the free world who I think is actually contributing to the spread of democracy and liberalism, it's...
Nikki Haley. And I would have never thought, in a thousand years, that I would have ever said that. But of Trump appointees, aside from maybe Gen. Mattis, she's the only person with a clear and consistent foreign policy perspective, and one that has actually criticized opponents of Democracy and liberalism, instead of cozying up to them like the Administration of her president.
At some point a disdain for American exceptionalism has to cede to the disdain of ignorance. It's a simple fact that in the overwhelming majority of international crisis, the world turns to what the US' response is first and it pivots on that response. It isn't always (or even usually as of the last 15 or 20 years) a good response, but despite being much closer geographically, when Putin Invades another European country, Merkel will probably again turn to the United States for what to do, as Germany did with Ukraine and Crimea. And that is for a anti-Democratic foe that is only 1500 Km from Berlin. If there is a democratic crisis in South East Asia, South America, or African countries (that don't have German populations), it's unlikely that Merkel would be involved in anything more than a secondary or tertiary role, beyond typical economic commitments of a G7 or G22 country. You don't have to be an American exceptionalist to recognize that the US is nearly always the most consequential actor in international relations around the world... And that doesn't mean that the choices are always good, or even lately mostly good, but the American president is the one that other leaders pivot on, not Merkel or any other European leader.
I was very optimistic about Emmanuel Macron, as the only French candidate who didn't seem in bed with Putin, but that quickly changed as soon as he became President of France and he was presented with a foreign policy dilemma. He's basically performed a 180 in the last 2 weeks. I wonder what figure the oil contract was that made him change his mind, just as Sarkozy, Berlusconi, and other central European leaders have turned towards Russia on.
As far as Bernie Sanders is concerned, I'm not sure if an isolationist who shares the same international economic perspective as Donald Trump -- another isolationist -- is really an effective leader of the free world. If he were president, he probably would have had to change is foreign policy outlook, but a lot of Sander's appeal is that he's inward looking at the United States which is very similar to Trump, and a contrast to, say, Hillary Clinton who was, at least 5 years ago, the second most influential American in international affairs.
In Netherland you can have sex with a prostitute, while smoking weed in front of a cop and you won't be arrested.
How dare anyone not call Rutte the leader of the free world.
I can see your point
But Nominal is also very flawed. For example, Trump mentions us on a Twitter and that means our economy instantly collapses by 2%? Then, our federal bank sells $100M USD and our economy then grew 3%?
RPGCrazied
Member
Anybody else. No Putin, none of those dictators, Trump included. Probably would be Merkel, Trudeau or Macron.
Because Trump sure as hell cant be one.
My vote
No matter how great leader you might think he is for Canada, how can anyone seriously(?) suggest Trudeau is the leader of free world? Canada has almost no international significance whatsoever.
Talk about hyperbole.