For one thing, as an administration insider says, it’s a twist on previous efforts that funded “specific causes”.
For another, most foreign funding was usually bipartisan otherwise it would have been killed by subsequent presidents from the opposite party.
For another, I’ve not heard of other such funding that was “causing consternation among allies”.
For another, “ Another senior Reform figure said they had been told that Rogers “had a state department slush fund to get Maga-style things going in various places”, adding that she was keen to “fund European organisations to undermine government policies””……undermining government policies of allies was likely never done on this broad scale (even if the US may have intervened on specific policies).
Why don’t you provide some examples of “Democrats funding into liberal NGOs and charities” that cause so much consternation among allies?
> How is this any diffent than when Democrats put finding into liberal NGOs and charities?
For one, I have to repeat yet again that wrong plus wrong doesn't equal right it equals twice as wrong. It's time to learn proper math already!
For another, what NGOs did the Dems fund? Do you have links so we can compare the causes supported by the Dems and the nationalism which is now being pushed inside and out.
All causes aren't the same, they can be very different as the current case shows.
Nationalism is a tool of destruction which works both domestically and internationally, those who know and think about history and some recent events understand that, it isn't new or a secret - that's why many European countries are spooked and they aren't mistaken.
They are responding to the comment above that asks why this funding is different than previous administrations. Generally, it breaks with many long held (post ww2) diplomatic approaches to american soft power. Instead of engendering good will with our allies (as opposed to the world as a whole mind you) it seeks to insert the thin edge of the wedge.
How is this any diffent than when Democrats put finding into liberal NGOs and charities?
For one thing, as an administration insider says, it’s a twist on previous efforts that funded “specific causes”.
For another, most foreign funding was usually bipartisan otherwise it would have been killed by subsequent presidents from the opposite party.
For another, I’ve not heard of other such funding that was “causing consternation among allies”.
For another, “ Another senior Reform figure said they had been told that Rogers “had a state department slush fund to get Maga-style things going in various places”, adding that she was keen to “fund European organisations to undermine government policies””……undermining government policies of allies was likely never done on this broad scale (even if the US may have intervened on specific policies).
Why don’t you provide some examples of “Democrats funding into liberal NGOs and charities” that cause so much consternation among allies?
> How is this any diffent than when Democrats put finding into liberal NGOs and charities?
For one, I have to repeat yet again that wrong plus wrong doesn't equal right it equals twice as wrong. It's time to learn proper math already!
For another, what NGOs did the Dems fund? Do you have links so we can compare the causes supported by the Dems and the nationalism which is now being pushed inside and out.
All causes aren't the same, they can be very different as the current case shows.
Nationalism is a tool of destruction which works both domestically and internationally, those who know and think about history and some recent events understand that, it isn't new or a secret - that's why many European countries are spooked and they aren't mistaken.
Who are you responding to?
They are responding to the comment above that asks why this funding is different than previous administrations. Generally, it breaks with many long held (post ww2) diplomatic approaches to american soft power. Instead of engendering good will with our allies (as opposed to the world as a whole mind you) it seeks to insert the thin edge of the wedge.
snapshot: https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.ft.com/content/f8696d...