Is America really the greatest country in the world anymore?

You said America was great because European immigrants built it. I merely pointed out that they did so on land and with resources that were not theirs. I imagine that helped somewhat.

But as I said, putting that to one side, European Americans make up the majority of the population and government......so what happened? Why are you blaming immigrants and 'ethnics', when they aren't (and never have been) the ones calling the shots in the US?

Assuming America was ever great, we can rest assured that it will not be if Clinton wins. Then again.... Trump....isnt the ideal choice either, to say the least.

The United States have an extraordinarilly good mentality when it comes to personal freedom and entrepreneurship. It is found nowhere else in the world. However, the US has one of the worst healthcare and education systems of any Western country, and that is what pulls America down.

Weak effort from a weak little man.

I'm American. I think China is actually the greatest country in the world now, but America is still very powerful.

The height of American power was between the 1960s and the early 2000s. I'm pretty sure America will never be what it was prior to 2008 ever again, between Obama and the housing crisis.

Unless something can be done to reverse the trend the left has put us on towards European socialism, a weak military, and censorship laws, we'll be as irrelevant and useless as Europe on the world stage by the time Hilary gets done with us.

It's annoying... the left is always holding up Europe and the EU as an example of what our nation should be. But they always ignore the problems with it. And the fact that Europeans aren't completely happy with the EU.

Do you really believe that Europe is "irrelevant and useless" on the world stage?

Well there's a whole other debate over which is more applicable, nominal or PPP GDP. I can't quite bring myself to make the effort over that debate, so we'll just agree to disagree. It's true that the dominance of the US dollar gives the US a huge amount of influence in the global economy....but.....it's a double edged sword since it's pretty much inevitable that the US dollar will not remain the sole reserve currency forever (already many nations are starting to diversity with the yuan, including the UK), and when it loses that status, the US's interest rate shoots up....and when you look at their debt.....not a good thing.

The US is definitely at the forefront of technological innovation....right now. But officially China overtook the US in patent applications a few years ago, and the trend going forward is that while the US will continue to be a major innovator without doubt, it will certainly have competitors it did not have 15 years ago.

Yeah, it's true that the US exerts a tremendous influence on other countries in diplomatic relations, especially with allies. That's undeniably true.

Not too sure the ability to 'dismantle a smaller country' is the best yardstick to measure the US's military strength. Ultimately those smaller countries are not going to be the major threats/challenges to US authority, influence and prosperity. It's the US's ability to fight the bigger boys that matters. And looking at recent developments, such as the Chinese submarine that literally surfaced right in front of one of the US's supercarriers, with neither it, nor its support vessels technology being able to detect it, in a clear signal that if there had been a state of war, that submarine would have sunk the carrier, I think US power projection is not unchallenged anymore. It's telling that when the Russian's deployed their S400 systems in Syria (the West has no equivalent system by the way), the US pulled its fighters, including the F22 out of the airspace now dominated by the Russians, and even admitted that Russian anti air and electronic warfare systems deployed in Syria were far more advanced that they expected. Now imagine if the Russians sold those technologies to those smaller countries. What would that do to the US's ability to project power?

I do think the standard of living at home is an important tool for projecting influence abroad. For example during the Cold War the Soviet Union was a vast and powerful state....that not many people wanted to move to. In contrast, the US had a superior standard of living and culture to the Soviets and that arguably was what won them the Cold War (increased exposure to the US standard of living led many Russians to demand the same, which led to the reforms that ultimately brought down the communist regime).

I don't really care about American politics. But I will say that I hope Trump wins.....just for the entertainment value.

Im usually a big fan of Michelle Obama. But I wasn't a fan of what she said at the Democrat party convention.

From BBC News:
'Don't let anyone ever tell you that this country isn't great, that somehow we need to make it great again," she said, referring to Mr Trump's signature slogan "Make America Great Again"."Because this, right now, is the greatest country on earth," she added'

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Michelle?

Here are some interesting facts, the USA and its close ally, China could wipe most countries off the map if it wanted to. It's been done before, it can be done again, for example, when the US dropped bombs on Hiroshima in Japan, they had no choice but to surrender! The US could just as easily take out India, in a matter of seconds, and leave no trace of its existence. And there's nothing you can do about it!

You clearly have no idea that India has nuclear weapons......and the nuclear submarines to deliver them anywhere on the globe. Try reading up on second strike capability......moron.

You clearly have no idea that India has nuclear weapons......and the nuclear submarines to deliver them anywhere on the globe. Try reading up on second strike capability......moron.

The US is an interesting case.

The median elementary to high school student is definitely not world-competitive, countries like Singapore and China outrank the United States by a country mile. The success and wealth of the US has always been within the upper-middle class, whose average earnings and educational attainments and research achievements has made the US a place with very high standards of living.

The best students of China are about as good as the best students of the USA, but with a population several times as large. There is definitely an emerging middle-class in China and India, but manufacturing/blue-collar work still dominate their economies. Developed in China and Innovated in China is something to come, for now things are still Made in China.

She lied. USA doesn't exist. Only PSA does. It's the Police States of America. And only police are great...not American people. Democracy & Liberty in US have just died.







Posted from TSR Mobile

Compared to the US, China, and Russia? Yes. Bear in mind that I'm talking in terms of power projection rather than "soft" power.

European militaries are generally very weak, and they can't do much on their own unless they form complex political alliances. The three nations I've mentioned above have the advantage of being able to act unilaterally if necessary. Also, the US and China are the only countries in the tens of millions for GDP. The closest competing EU nation is Germany, and that only has a GDP of three or four million. It's not even a contest. Most other European nations have GDPs of two million or less. Many even have GDPs under one million. Europe has a lot of impossibly small countries like Belgium, Switzerland, and Luxembourg that are weak and would be absorbed by stronger neighbors if not for quirks in ancient treaties and alliances.

I don't think the EU will ever match the US, Russia, or China because its parts are formed of culturally and linguistically disparate countries with a long history of bad blood who would resent being ruled over by another part or a representative of another part too much to allow it continually.

Now, Europe does have quite a bit of soft power in terms of culture and setting global standards. Many people would envy the high standard of living, just laws, education, and socially liberal principles of European society (especially Western and Northern Europe). But that's not the same thing as real power. Real power is land, money, weapons, and men. No European nation still commands a significant proportion of these things globally, although they do have just enough to fend off their nearest neighbors if necessary.

If you were to take the US, China, and Russia off the table... maybe they all have civil wars and get broken up into smaller territories, for instance. Then European countries are quite powerful relative to other states in the world. But you would have to take the big three off the table for European power to amount to anything.

I know I probably sound arrogant, but that's mostly because I'm a citizen of the US and it may sound like I'm taking credit for this. But the truth is, I had nothing to do with it. US power is just a fact, and I only claim that the US is a superpower like China and Russia by the numbers, not that it's stronger than the other two. That's worth bearing in mind, along with the fact that I'm not the most diplomatic person in the world.

how brainwashed can you get lmao

Well there's a whole other debate over which is more applicable, nominal or PPP GDP. I can't quite bring myself to make the effort over that debate, so we'll just agree to disagree. It's true that the dominance of the US dollar gives the US a huge amount of influence in the global economy....but.....it's a double edged sword since it's pretty much inevitable that the US dollar will not remain the sole reserve currency forever (already many nations are starting to diversity with the yuan, including the UK), and when it loses that status, the US's interest rate shoots up....and when you look at their debt.....not a good thing.

The US is definitely at the forefront of technological innovation....right now. But officially China overtook the US in patent applications a few years ago, and the trend going forward is that while the US will continue to be a major innovator without doubt, it will certainly have competitors it did not have 15 years ago.

Yeah, it's true that the US exerts a tremendous influence on other countries in diplomatic relations, especially with allies. That's undeniably true.

Not too sure the ability to 'dismantle a smaller country' is the best yardstick to measure the US's military strength. Ultimately those smaller countries are not going to be the major threats/challenges to US authority, influence and prosperity. It's the US's ability to fight the bigger boys that matters. And looking at recent developments, such as the Chinese submarine that literally surfaced right in front of one of the US's supercarriers, with neither it, nor its support vessels technology being able to detect it, in a clear signal that if there had been a state of war, that submarine would have sunk the carrier, I think US power projection is not unchallenged anymore. It's telling that when the Russian's deployed their S400 systems in Syria (the West has no equivalent system by the way), the US pulled its fighters, including the F22 out of the airspace now dominated by the Russians, and even admitted that Russian anti air and electronic warfare systems deployed in Syria were far more advanced that they expected. Now imagine if the Russians sold those technologies to those smaller countries. What would that do to the US's ability to project power?

I do think the standard of living at home is an important tool for projecting influence abroad. For example during the Cold War the Soviet Union was a vast and powerful state....that not many people wanted to move to. In contrast, the US had a superior standard of living and culture to the Soviets and that arguably was what won them the Cold War (increased exposure to the US standard of living led many Russians to demand the same, which led to the reforms that ultimately brought down the communist regime).