[Goose]

I have read that our allies are basically willing to give the U.S. a pass for the last four years if it makes a change in November.

Those who wrote that are mistaken. Many of our allies have various problems with the US to begin with. The last four years provide a great excuse to act upon those problems. The thing that slows such actions down is the extent to which these allies benefit from the alliance. However it is now credible to argue that the US is not reliable and those benefits can't be relied upon. What if there is another Trump? That damage isn't EVER going to go away. Previously, it could be dismissed as impossible. Not any more.

OMG, people get a hold of yourselves.  Trump is so far in your heads you all are like deer in headlights.

The institutions are far stronger than any one individual (and if not, how valuable were those institutions in the first place?).  A little faith.  This (like the virus) shall pass.

P.S.  Somebody just needs to set Joe's alarm clock for Election Night - no need to see him before that.  The downside is too great.

Teejers1, I talk with employees of NATO organizations pretty much weekly. I can assure you that they value the US participation greatly, but that their confidence in the USA is shaken to the core. Most of these people are fully cynical about the limitations of their own governments. However, they believed that somehow we were "different", that we could be trusted to be the "adult in the room" when maybe the rest of Europe couldn't be. They also trusted that, after many years of effort on our part to convince them, that we wouldn't abandon them when things got tough and it might be convenient for us to do so. Obviously, the reasons we wouldn't abandon them are rooted in our own self-interest, but we advertise that it goes beyond that. Previously, our NATO partners pretty much drank the kool-aid and believed us. After the current POTUS, they don't. They see NATO now as no different than the alliances that were made between European nations in the early 20th century, to be discarded if they aren't popular at the moment. That is a big difference and a big problem. That isn't "deer in the headlights". That is a fact.

---

In the past, the MMWR has been the least political publication put out by the US government. Most political appointees probably were only vaguely aware of it and ignored it if they were. The fact that the career people writing it are being censored is a complete scandal.

Censorship is a complete scandal, I agree. The fact that political appointees are now aware the MMWR exists is a "good thing" IMHO if said political appointees bring an appropriate level of thought and reason to their involvement (if any) in it. That could be a useful, constructive force, could it not?

[Goose]

I have read that our allies are basically willing to give the U.S. a pass for the last four years if it makes a change in November.

Those who wrote that are mistaken. Many of our allies have various problems with the US to begin with. The last four years provide a great excuse to act upon those problems. The thing that slows such actions down is the extent to which these allies benefit from the alliance. However it is now credible to argue that the US is not reliable and those benefits can't be relied upon. What if there is another Trump? That damage isn't EVER going to go away. Previously, it could be dismissed as impossible. Not any more.

OMG, people get a hold of yourselves.  Trump is so far in your heads you all are like deer in headlights.

The institutions are far stronger than any one individual (and if not, how valuable were those institutions in the first place?).  A little faith.  This (like the virus) shall pass.

P.S.  Somebody just needs to set Joe's alarm clock for Election Night - no need to see him before that.  The downside is too great.

Teejers1, I talk with employees of NATO organizations pretty much weekly. I can assure you that they value the US participation greatly, but that their confidence in the USA is shaken to the core. Most of these people are fully cynical about the limitations of their own governments. However, they believed that somehow we were "different", that we could be trusted to be the "adult in the room" when maybe the rest of Europe couldn't be. They also trusted that, after many years of effort on our part to convince them, that we wouldn't abandon them when things got tough and it might be convenient for us to do so. Obviously, the reasons we wouldn't abandon them are rooted in our own self-interest, but we advertise that it goes beyond that. Previously, our NATO partners pretty much drank the kool-aid and believed us. After the current POTUS, they don't. They see NATO now as no different than the alliances that were made between European nations in the early 20th century, to be discarded if they aren't popular at the moment. That is a big difference and a big problem. That isn't "deer in the headlights". That is a fact.

---

In the past, the MMWR has been the least political publication put out by the US government. Most political appointees probably were only vaguely aware of it and ignored it if they were. The fact that the career people writing it are being censored is a complete scandal.

Censorship is a complete scandal, I agree. The fact that political appointees are now aware the MMWR exists is a "good thing" IMHO if said political appointees bring an appropriate level of thought and reason to their involvement (if any) in it. That could be a useful, constructive force, could it not?