[marcosdumay]

Earlier this year, the US recalled their ambassador in Brazil and asked permission for the local government to nearly double the embassy's building size on the same week. (And kept both actions on the long term.)

Try to understand that.

[kergonath]

To be fair, the reason of a lot of actions by American diplomats these days seems to be "because we can".

[Animats]

No, the US didn't recall its ambassador to Brazil. The acting US ambassador there was summoned to the foreign ministry of Brazil. The US has some disagreements with Brazil (or, rather, Trump does, because they're putting a former national leader on trial). Here's a view from Rio.[1]

Recalling an ambassador to their home country (the traditional phrase is "recalled for consultations with their government") in modern times usually means they're being replaced.

[1] https://www.riotimesonline.com/lulas-brazil-at-a-crossroads-...

[averageRoyalty]

> The US has some disagreements with Brazil (or, rather, Trump does, because they're putting a former national leader on trial).

That seems an odd clarification. Do you not believe a democratically elected leader represents a country? Every country has people who disagree with their leaders views, however this clarification on every statement would get tiring quickly.

[avar]

It's because before Bush invaded Iraq it would have been redundant to clarify that Bush said such and such in an official (written) capacity, as opposed to describing what the foreign policy goals of the US were at that moment. The two were synonymous.

Whereas when Trump was making overtures to annex Canada, it was useful to the rest of the world to explain that that's something the president was talking about that weekend, as opposed to signs that this might be something the US would actually do.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Democratically elected leaders can represent their country, but they can also do things on their own. When Emmanuel Macron eats at a restaurant we don't typically understand the nation of France to be involved. Trump's dispute with Brazil doesn't serve US interests and isn't permitted by US law, so he's not representing the US when he pursues it, even if he's illegally abusing the powers of his office to do so.

It's a subtle distinction, of course, and I don't blame anyone outside the US who decides they're not going to bother making it.

[shermantanktop]

Not all leaders do that equally, wouldn’t you agree? Some leaders stay close to the views of the average voter, whereas others are clearly driven by personal motivations. I don’t think it’s controversial to note that Trump is an extreme of the latter case.

[tracker1]

It's kind of a common state in US politics today... especially so with those on the political left when a Republican President is in office. That said, it's far amplified in recent years, but I recall similar sentiments as far back as when Reagan was President, and wouldn't be surprised with similar remarks before.

I've also heard some similar remarks towards Obama and Biden from the right, but not nearly as much as the left with Trump. The US political sphere is increasingly divided and the Overton window is fractured as well.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason you hear it a lot with regards to Trump is that Trump has said, repeatedly and at great length, that he hates left-leaning Americans and refuses to represent them because they're enemies to be crushed. He announced over the weekend that he's considering a military invasion of Chicago.

[tptacek]

Pointlessly posting National Guard members outside of federal buildings is not in fact a "military invasion" of Chicago. It's stupid! But not much more than that.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It's not, but what's happening in DC is already more than that - they've begun operating mobile armed patrols of residential neighborhoods. See https://www.reuters.com/pictures/scenes-dc-federal-agents-na... for pictures; in particular, note the masked paramilitary goons casually strolling by a shop (https://www.reuters.com/resizer/v2/U7NNOHI5RRMCNE33UNDIWCP3H...).

Like, are they going to start shooting people? Probably not, probably it will go the same way as the LA invasion where the troops just kinda slink away after Trump gets distracted and Stephen Miller kidnaps all the immigrants he was looking for. But what happens if the Chicago PD tries to obstruct some operation or another on a day Trump got up on the wrong side of the bed?

[sapphicsnail]

I live in LA and it's terrifying. There are soldiers in our streets without our consent. It isn't going to end with this. They're going to keep escalating. At this point, I dlthink half the country would he fine if Trump started bombing us.

[tracker1]

When you have opposing PoV, there's often no way to represent the interest of "both sides" ... Trump is choosing to represent the side with a Pro-US sentiment as opposed to those with Anti-US sentiment. To an extent this makes total sense.

I didn't specifically want to get into the reasoning as to why, beyond the simple fact that there is a large and increasing political divide. Trump is largely representing the majority in terms of what the population wants. The process isn't always what an individual or side may want specifically, but the results have been in line with the stated goals.

I don't have to like the guy to point this out. I usually vote LP myself. I reject far left and far right positions, but find that the far left is a much bigger group. And by "Far" I mean those whose positions are outside what most Americans would consider normative. Far right being around 5%, and doesn't include the majority of "MAGA". Far left being around 15% of the population, including those with cult-like adherence to leftist ideology and disruptive Marxist/Maoist tactics.