People in the US need to become more aware of the dramatic impact this current administration has on the world. A paper in the Lancet, not exactly your average leftie rag, extrapolates the deaths resulting from the sudden USAID defunding to amount to about 14 million people. That's about 10x Pol Pot.

People around the world distancing themselves from these actions is hardly nationalism.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

▲

PlatoIsADisease an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm sorry, my cognitive bias says 'Look! See! That proves my point at how great the US is/was.'

1 bad politician elected by a fraction of the population is enough to turn the world against us. Why bother with such altruism when a single election can turn everyone against us?

	▲	celsoazevedo 23 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		But it's not just one politician or just one election. The current guy was elected twice and the movement supporting him is unlikely to disappear any time soon. His position on tariffs, NATO, and Greenland are not new. From the outside, it doesn't look like one wrong step, but just part of the new normal. It's also important to understand that those on the receiving end of the threats are not taking them lightly. No one's laughing. With that in mind, it's easy to understand the change in behaviour. In the context of this thread, I've been looking at the services I use, and which ones might become unavailable if, let's say, the US takes Greenland. It has nothing to do with nationalism, I just don't want to be caught with my pants down.
	▲	rkomorn an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Altruism is not transactional. If you think the US' "altruism" should buy us goodwill, then you're not for altruism, you're for good PR.