[drinchev]

> 30 years from now, candidates for president of the United States will have their old social media posts under a microscope. Whatever dumb thing they posted in their teens will be brought to light.

Considering that the leader of the free world is currently using twitter the same way as some of my friends do it, I really doubt that the social media will be such a significant way to check politicians.

More or less it will happen the opposite ( already happening ), where the politicians will judge the "average" citizen, by analysing tons of social media posts and reactions to them.

[riq_]

> Considering that the leader of the free world

nit: I think you are referring to Trump, the president of the USA. But I doubt he is the "leader of the free world", whatever that means.

[dang]

Please don't isolate the most flamebaity bit of a comment and then respond to that. It paves the way for full flamewar below. We're all responsible for fire safety here.

In a way you can think of this as a variant of the site guideline which asks:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

It's not what we originally had in mind when we added it, but "strongest plausible" can be taken to include "least flame-prone".

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[akhilcacharya]

The President of the US used to be referred to as the leader of the free world with some credibility.

That is less true today but the term remains.

[Raphmedia]

That title was only valid from 1940 until around the end of the cold war. How can the "Free World" be free if it is dominated by a single foreign nation? If anything, that title should be given to an organization.

[adventured]

The title isn't: dominator of the free world. It's leader of the free world. You can lead without conquering or dominating. Ideally in this use concept, the free world willingly follows. Whatever the most powerful nation in the so called free world is, that will always be the leader (even if people don't like it), particularly if there's an outsized difference in economic & military capability as is the case with the US vs everybody else.

[adventured]

It's very clearly not less true, even if Trump's critics like to discredit him with that (Merkel being the new leader of the free world).

The sole thing presently keeping Russia from invading Eastern Europe and taking more territory, is the US military presence in Europe. The sole thing keeping North Korea from invading South Korea and attempting to annex it, is the US. The sole thing (maybe temporarily) keeping China from officially annexing Taiwan, is the US military presence in Asia.

Not Germany, not France, not the UK, not Australia, not Canada, not New Zealand, not Japan, not the UN.

Here are your realistic alternative choices: China, expansionist dictatorship with minimum human rights; Russia, expansionist dictatorship with minimum human rights. And then for 'free world' choices: Germany, UK, France, Japan - which of those has any kind of global power today, economically or militarily? None. Germany doesn't even have its own currency, and their military capabilities can barely push beyond their own borders, not to mention they have no nuclear umbrella capability to bring the rest of the free world under.

The US is all the world has on that side of the board in terms of an actual superpower. It's going to remain that way for the forseeable future. Like it or not. I fully understand why people don't like Trump and I understand why they'd wish for a different President to be in there. Nixon mostly sucked too (despite a few significant domestic & foreign policy accomplishments). The US will, from time to time, elect bad and or mediocre leaders. And then Trump's term will be over.

[wycy]

The US may still well be the protector of the free world, but we've otherwise abdicated our global leadership role. And, with Trump's coyness on US commitment to Article 5 of NATO, whether or not we'll continue to even be the protector in the future is anyone's guess.

[aaron-lebo]

There's not a small portion of US society which believes that Trump is a moron and a disaster. I'd wait until after his term to determine whether this is a 4 year fluke or the sign of something bigger.

Nations operate in terms of centuries not 4 years.

[ako]

And that is exactly why the rest of the free world is so upset with the americans choosing Trump as their president. Trump doesn't seem to understand this role of the US, and he may very well be in the pockets of rusia.

[y4mi]

> The sole thing presently keeping Russia from invading Eastern Europe and taking more territory, is the US military presence in Europe. The sole thing keeping North Korea from invading South Korea and attempting to annex it, is the US. The sole thing (maybe temporarily) keeping China from officially annexing Taiwan, is the US military presence in Asia.

I don't now about Taiwan, but I doubt it as the other points are utter nonesense. China is the only reason why NK still exists. And China 'protects' NK because the US wants it.

And I have no idea where you got the russian thing from. That makes simply no sense. It was true about ... 40 years ago? and thats stretching it. The economic sanctions from the EU had a way bigger impact on their last 'invasion'

> Not Germany, not France, not the UK, not Australia, not Canada, not New Zealand, not Japan, not the UN.

I agree on that front. None of them deserve that title. Nor does the US though. The position of 'leader of the free world' is - in my opinion - vacant at the moment.

[GCU-Empiricist]

Did sanctions stop Russia from securing another warm water port in Ukraine?

[y4mi]

no, but it stopped russia from continuing the aggression.

The sanctions didn't hit until after that happened.

[aaron-lebo]

Russia invaded Crimea with NATO and the US watching. It's not a stretch at all to imagine that Russia would be much more active if The US didn't spend more than anyone else in the world on their military many times over. You are drastically underestimating just how big the US military presence is. Either European nations would have to spend much more on their military (and lose some of their social democratic nature), or they'd be under constant threat.

Japan, Taiwan, and SK the same. Just look at the numbers.

Here's military expenditures for 2017 if you'd like facts:

1 United States 611.2 billion

2 China 215.7

3 Russia 69.2

4 Saudi Arabia 63.7

5 India 55.9

6 France 55.7

7 United Kingdom 48.3

8 Japan 46.1

9 Germany 41.1

10 South Korea 36.8

[logfromblammo]

The "leader of the free world" stops being coincident with the officeholder of the US presidency the instant someone devoid of positive leadership qualities steps into it. It is entirely possible that there no longer is a "leader of the free world" now, or that it might change hands on an ad hoc basis, depending on who was particularly brilliant on a given day.

One might be able to make a case for Angela Merkel or (metonymically) Brussels, Belgium, in it's role as headquarters for NATO and host of the EU parliament, but I'm inclined to believe the title is still awaiting someone worthy of it.