回顾川普上台后的政绩-除了失败还是失败!(转)

清月随风
楼主 (北美华人网)
美国之所以走到现在这种绝境,川普的贡献很大。只要他还在,美国就会不断的失策,不断的失败,直到走向最后的灭亡。因为川普是个获得失败方面的天才。甚至可以说,川普在如何失败这件事上面,具有某种神奇的特异功能。不管什么事,一到他手里,都会必败无疑。
川普上台以来,一直都在失败,还从来都没有成功过。根本不像他这次讲话里面说的那样,他们一直在成功。事实上他们一直都在失败。
在叙利亚失败了,在阿富汗失败了,打贸易战,也失败了,被迫在谈判桌上签字。和阿富汗的战争,也失败了,被塔利班逼上谈判桌,被当成垃圾一样的往外赶。在朝鲜失败了,被玩弄于鼓掌之中。和伊朗的关系,也彻底的失败了,被击落无人机,还被炸了大使馆。
大三角关系,彻底失败,导致另外两个大国结盟,共同对付美国。和欧洲的关系失败了,马克龙公开宣称北约脑死亡,要把解散北约提上议程。和日韩的关系失败了,导致日韩重新择良主而事。和土耳其的关系失败了,导致土耳其反水,加入了欧亚联盟。和沙特的关系也失败了,导致沙特和俄罗斯联手发动了石油战争猎杀美国。和印度的关系也失败了,把印度撩拨起来了,又不能满足印度人的要求,结果只能导致反目。修了一个墙,和墨西哥的关系也搞失败了。
打科技战,失败了。举全国之力,围剿中国的一家民营企业,结果还遭到了惨败。金融战争也失败了,美股一泻千里崩盘了。国民经济上,也彻底的失败了,美国债务持续创新高,经济上除了泡沫就是泡沫,除了虚假就是虚假。
疫情防控,也彻底的失败了。不仅失败了,还掩耳盗铃的不肯面对现实。
总之,川普上台后,一次都没有成功过。只要他当一天的总统,美国这个国家就不可能好起来,只会不断的从失败走向失败。
老丘
高级黑,明明说得是中国和习近平。
Beingyourself
高级黑,明明说得是中国和习近平。
老丘 发表于 2020-09-24 00:56

川普和习惠帝 都一样
中美就被这二个垃圾玩惨掉。
deam
川普和习惠帝 都一样
中美就被这二个垃圾玩惨掉。
Beingyourself 发表于 2020-09-24 01:06

区别是中国的体制会一直出现习近平这种垃圾
formemory
好奇哪两个大国结盟了。
vanilla-m
懒得看,我只知道民主党稀拉里上台会更糟糕。所以选川普,并且他还是做了写事情的。
Beingyourself
二年前,我就讲过川普,习惠帝其实就是二个无赖流氓
这里很多人攻击我,讲我白天攻击川普,晚上攻击习惠帝
现在看看这二个人是不是这样
j
jennyjiang
去看看高曉松《曉說》介紹的美國總統的權力也就只有外交這一塊了。 美國三權鼎立,美國是先有國家再選的總統,總統基本早已經沒啥好幹的,也沒啥絕對的權利,除了外交政策。就這樣美國還被他敗家到這樣了....
ycyxycm
除了說失敗兩字, 沒有看到一條強勁都證據。
貿易戰怎麼失敗了? 封鎖華為又是什麼地方? 總之,言之無物的東西
C
Cleveland
区别是中国的体制会一直出现习近平这种垃圾
deam 发表于 2020-09-24 01:08

不光如此,现在个垃圾还不知道什么时候下台呢,不是终生制了吗
nypapaya


Trump addresses the United Nations General Assembly in New York, September 2018 - Carlo Allegri / Reuters The United States Can’t Quit on the UN When America Withdraws, China Wins By Kristine Lee This week, the United Nations General Assembly is holding its first-ever virtual gathering of world leaders. The event has been a complicated one for Washington. In his recorded speech before the General Assembly on Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump excoriated China for its failure to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus around the world. But the inadequacies of his own administration’s response overshadowed his message. The Trump administration has turned the United States inward and retreated from the UN, most recently by precipitously withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO) during the pandemic.  In June, National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien explained that the United States terminated its relationship with the WHO because the agency’s “response to the pandemic showed that it is beholden to China.” The administration claims to face a binary choice between withdrawing from or cooperating with UN agencies that are cowed by authoritarian interests. But the dichotomy is a false one. U.S. retrenchment empowers only China. Beijing is eager to expand its influence on the world stage to serve its narrow interests, and U.S. withdrawal has pushed beleaguered UN agencies further into China’s orbit, ultimately making the world less hospitable to U.S. interests. Instead of withdrawing, the United States should use carefully calibrated economic incentives to promote reform toward an agenda more in line with its interests and values. Such an approach would allow Washington to blunt China’s growing influence where necessary and to shape the trajectory of UN agencies, beginning with the WHO. DIVIDED WE FALL The American public has a broadly favorable view of the UN, opinion polls suggest, and a 2020 study even showed that more than 70 percent of Americans support rejoining the WHO. But some policymakers have cast doubt on the utility of U.S. engagement. Even before the pandemic—and especially since the 2016 U.S. presidential election—scholars, including Stewart Patrick in these pages, have spilled barrels of ink debating the precise definitions, future direction, and coming dissolution of the liberal international order that the UN embodies. During the 2016 campaign, Trump memorably denounced the “false song of globalism,” vowing to reject the “international unions that . . . bring America down.” In keeping with this view, the Trump administration drafted an executive order at its very outset to slash U.S. payments to the UN by as much as 40 percent, claiming that such investments did not serve the interests of American taxpayers. The president’s supporters in the Senate echoed this view. According to Rob Portman, the Republican senator from Ohio, “When all of our taxpayers are paying roughly 22 percent of the UN budget, I think they do expect to see a more efficient organization that’s more objective and more in keeping with our values.” In 2016, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, similarly argued, “If you can’t show the American people that international organizations can be more responsible, there is going to be a break.” The Trump administration has set about translating this impulse into policy. But if the United States withdraws from UN agencies without clear alternatives in place, the world will ultimately grow more hostile to U.S. values and interests. That eventuality has unfolded in real time, perhaps nowhere more alarmingly than at the WHO. A CAUTIONARY TALE Compared with the United States, Beijing has made much smaller financial contributions to the United Nations and has far less diplomatic wherewithal. But China has shown that it knows how to use the leverage it possesses much more strategically and often more unscrupulously than the United States is willing to do. Consider the WHO.The United States has historically been the WHO’s largest patron, underwriting about 15.0 percent of the agency’s budget, in contrast with China’s mere 0.2 percent. But in 2017, Beijing-backed candidate Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was elected Director-General of the WHO. Upon assuming the position, Tedros parroted Beijing’s call for a “Health Silk Road,” which would bring Chinese-backed health care to developing countries. This past spring, the United States backed Taiwan’s bid for inclusion in the WHO’s World Health Assembly on the grounds that the island had mounted one of the world’s most successful responses to the COVID-19 pandemic—but the WHO bent to Chinese pressure to exclude Taipei from the meeting. The United States formally announced its withdrawal from the WHO in July 2020 and, by doing so, further empowered China and bolstered its authoritarian influence. China promptly announced that it would donate $2 billion to the UN to fight COVID-19, touting its role as a “defender of the international order.” Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, gloated that China had contributed to “global public health cooperation as a responsible major country” while the United States is “shirking its own responsibilities and undermining global solidarity in combating the virus.” Holding the organization’s purse strings and uncontested by U.S. leadership, China is now poised to exert undue influence over purportedly independent, WHO-led investigations into the origins of the virus. WHO experts conducting the probe have yet to travel to Wuhan, widely considered to be the original epicenter of the pandemic, fueling concerns about the investigation’s rigor and its possible deference to Chinese interests. As Beijing seizes this opportunity to lead multilateral health governance, it can also use the WHO to coerce UN member states into supporting its interests. In September, the WHO unveiled a global vaccine development and distribution plan—which neither China nor the United States has endorsed. Beijing could best the United States and its allies in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. With disproportionate sway at the WHO, China could then use preferential access to its vaccine as a bargaining chip to win member countries’ support for its positions, such as isolating Taiwan or forestalling criticism of its policies in Hong Kong, Tibet, or Xinjiang. The WHO is far from the only UN agency that has bent toward Beijing—and the United States’ retreat has accelerated the trend. In 2017, Washington exited UNESCO. Beijing later used its newfound clout to gain the organization’s endorsement of its Belt and Road Initiative and to try to double the number of Chinese staff in the agency. In 2018, the United States withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council. China has since effectively silenced the council’s criticism of its rampant human rights abuses, including the mass detention of Muslims in Xinjiang. As Beijing swallows up the UN, the United States’ approach to the organization has been fitful and reactive at best. Washington has dangled U.S. funding—and the threat of turning off the tap—over UN agencies that defy its interests. In October 2018, Washington threatened to sever ties with the Universal Postal Union, a UN body charged with regulating international mail service, for its practice of granting China lower shipping rates than the United States. The move, which was narrowly averted, would have set off a global postal crisis. The jarring turn of events at the WHO suggests that such tactics are growing increasingly counterproductive. The United States needs to find a way to engage with the UN that can advance its interests. STILL IN THE GAME In May, Trump gave the WHO 30 days to commit to “major substantive improvements” before the United States would withdraw its funding and walk away. But the United States did not define those improvements, let alone provide leadership or support to the cash-strapped agency tasked with implementing them. The United States needs to offer UN agencies a compelling alternative to authoritarian values and leadership if it wishes for them to be more effective and better aligned with its agenda. Positive financial incentives are likelier to encourage reform than are harsh ultimatums, especially given that Beijing stands ready to fill the coffers that the United States leaves empty. Washington could start by restoring a portion of its past funding to the WHO. Then the United States could commit to annually increasing this amount if the agency complies with certain conditions: restoring Taiwan’s observer status at the World Health Assembly, for instance, or hiring more Americans to fill the agency’s management positions. As the WHO meets these benchmarks, Washington should strengthen the United States’ clout at the UN by encouraging private-sector partnerships between the WHO and U.S. tech companies that pursue projects related to global public health. Washington could transparently negotiate such incentive structures with UN agencies and, in doing so, draw a sharp contrast to Beijing’s style of backroom deals and coercion. China doles out rewards and threatens retaliation to pressure governments to support its policies and its candidates for leadership posts. In contrast, the United States should work with like-minded countries and UN leaders to conduct specialized agency elections more openly and to codify standards of transparency in their operations. Notably, only after Australia, the EU, and other democracies publicly lobbied the WHO and mobilized broad-based support did the agency commit to conducting an independent investigation into the origins of the novel coronavirus. The United States should make sure to fill the vacant positions within its own government that work with the UN, and it must continue to send high-profile officials and talented working-level diplomats to represent U.S. interests there. It should further collaborate with allies early on to promote U.S.-backed candidates to lead important specialized agencies. Such measures would not supply a silver bullet, but they would show that the United States is still in the game and can still lead. In so doing, they would give Washington a better shot at shaping outcomes than if it simply threw in the towel. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: KRISTINE LEE is an Associate Fellow with the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.