Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, is the lucky winner of $40 billion that Donald Trump managed to conjure from thin air. Less lucky are the Americans who rely on the government programs Trump has gutted to be able to “save” that sum.
Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, is the lucky winner of $40 billion that Donald Trump managed to conjure from thin air. Less lucky are the Americans who rely on the government programs Trump has gutted to be able to “save” that sum.
This move seems very much to the benefit of the US and to the detriment of Argentina. Argentinians will pay dearly for this. Now, if you want to close your eyes and act like the US is a third world country nobody cares about go ahead. If you don’t want to see how the US relies on influence in other countries to sustain it’s wealth, that is ok.
Multiple straw men in one comment. Impressive.
The US President does not get to unilaterally decide where $40 billion of taxpayer dollars goes. It just does not work that way, and if any other president in US history had done even just this one thing, people in their own party would be condemning it.
If this action had anything to do with helping the people of Argentina, it would not be conditioned on them re-electing their failing idiot libertarian.
Oh sorry I missed the last part. This is clearly not done to help the people of Argentina.
Sure, that is internal politics. Go ahead and take part in the no kings day. Protest against your government and change it. I’m not American, I don’t know in detail what the president can or can not do. It is completely fine that you don’t agree with his decision. Hell, I really do not like this either. What I’ve been doing is explain the rationale behind the decision. There is a reason behind this choice and it is not that Trump wants to steal money from the government.
Do I like the US intervening more and more in other countries? No, I really do not like it. But frankly that is not just about Trump.
I’m not sure what you mean by straw men, it feels to me that we’re missing each other somewhere in the discussion.
These were the strawmen arguments I was referring to in your previous comment.
This is to tell that such actions are of fundamental importance for the US government and population. If the US had no strong influence over other countries, it’s economy would be way worse and its people in worse conditions. As such, to sustain such level of wealth it is necessary for the US to perform actions such as this one to maintain and gain influence over other countries. To be able to use their natural resources as if they were American, to reap the benefits of their people working in their countries.
This is what I meant to say. This action is reasonable for the US under the system it is currently working in. To make sure I made no mistakes, I searched what a straw men argument is. From what I understood it refers to refuting an argument by sustaining something unrelated. I do not believe what I wrote is unrelated. The fact that this action has been done to acquire influence in Argentina is what I’ve been writing the whole time.